Retric you are right that it is a very complex analysis. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. See for example <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd...</a>. If we assume that temperatures rise, evaporation will rise with the result of reducing the solar insolation at surface. If we had the models we could predict the weather months ahead, which we can't.<p>I quote a more qualified person than me, Prof. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service (See <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</a>)<p><i>There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "</i><p>There are a lot of low cost solutions, starting from not falling prey to marketing and consumerism. I am all for a pro-environment world, but I learnt not to buy into the politics and the lobbies of the day.