It is true that poor people who live in flimsy shacks are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events. However, the point you seem to be missing is that they would still be vulnerable to extreme weather events after we had spent trillions of dollars in reducing CO2 levels with alternative, more expensive, energy supplies, unless you believe that all extreme weather events are caused by elevated CO2 levels.
And there you go again, with another strawman's argument. Grow up and stop acting so childish. All that the experts say, is that extreme weather events will become more extreme (due to the increase in water volume (evaporating or raining), and larger temperature differences involved).
Poor people are energy-starved people. As the cost of energy rises, poverty increases, unless there is a major political change in the distribution of wealth (energy).
Not necessarily, but 'they' (as developing countries in Asia and Africa) are more likely to use cheap coal (amongst others from your home country) as they are catching up, thus adding to our shared problems.
What the article failed to mention is that water vapour is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
No, it is the most abundant, not the most significant, and it is not how solar radiation forcing works. Water vapor increases are caused by the increased CO2 levels (which leads to warming, which leads to expansion of the atmospheric volume, and it is filled by additional evaporated water), not the other way around.
From NOAA, which is a fairly reliable source of information, wouldn't you agree?
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere.
That's basic physics, yes.
As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'.
No, it soon reaches an equilibrium, because Water vapor is a short-lived gas. It needs CO2 to further warm the earth, CO2 is the driving force, complemented by water vapor.
Water vapor does two things (and that's also depending on its altitude), it indeed absorbs certain IR radiation wavelengths that is emitted/reflected back from the earth's surface, a 'positive' forcing. But it also reflects incoming solar energy when the water vapor is in the form of clouds, a 'negative' forcing, before the solar energy can be converted to longer wavelengths by the earth's surface. It is the
net forcing that's important, not the cherrypicked part of the equation if that better suits your agenda.
What you seem to be missing is an understanding of which wavelengths are involved and whether gasses with Greenhouse properties absorb in those wavelengths. Again, a simple illustration with an image, and don't worry I'll walk you through the interpretation in baby steps:
1. First, notice the wavelengths from the sun that reach the earth's atmosphere (red colored bell curve, at the top left). They cover some UV, visible light, and near-IR wavelengths. There is only very little absorption in the near-IR range by Water vapor, most light is absorbed in the UV side of the spectrum by O2 and Rayleigh-scattering, so ultimately 70-75% of the solar radiation reaches earth.
2. Then after cooling down a lot (absorption by the earth's surface), there are some re-emitted longer wavelengths trying to get back in space (blue colored bell-curve, at the top right).
It is these wavelengths that matter if they are blocked, the atmosphere heats up.
3. There is some partial Water vapor absorption at the lower wavelengths in that band (growing as the wavelengths get longer), then there is also very much absorption by CO2 just after the bell curve peaks, which therefore is behaving as a very significant 'Greenhouse gas', and the there is more Water vapor absorption at the right-hand tail side of the range.
Now comes the crux of the matter. CO2 and Water vapor
complement each other in absorbing more at the wavelengths where they matter most. Now, understand that the amount of water vapor (and thus its absoption) is limited by the atmosphere's temperature (it reaches an equilibrium and then starts raining out), but CO2 can regulate that equilibrium by building temperatures up to ever higher levels (which in turn will allow more water vapor to be held and then they can
both heat-up the atmosphere some more, until yet more CO2 raises the equilibruium level even further and so on).
So CO2 is driving the solar forcing, helped by H2O absorbing what CO2 didn't already absorb. CO2 is a long-lived Greenhouse gas and therefore its amount cumulates over time. If we were to abruptly stop emitting excess CO2, then it would still take quite some time before a new equilibrium is established, but things would settle at that equilibrium.
That's what the chart I've shown earlier depicts. I'll show it here again so you don't have to scroll back and forth.
However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.
Not really, the principles are well understood, and the solar radiation flux and atmospheric absorptions can actually be measured.
The 'only' problem is in the many model assumptions required for an accurate model
for the future.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/~naeger/references/journals/Sundar_Journal_Papers/1997_JGR_Hansen.pdfhttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdfhttp://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdfAs water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up).
And it also traps emissions from the earth's surface. Just notice how much more the night temperature drops on a cloudless night. The overall net forcing is negative (see the second chart in this post, under "Total Aerosol"), but with a huge range of possible values due to e.g. differences in landcover (meaning that it varies a lot at different loctations).
Have you got it yet, Bart, or do I have to go on and on and on? 
I appears like it's you who still didn't get it ... (hope my explanation gets you somewhat upto speed), but that didn't stop you before, so I'm not holding my breath.
Cheers,
Bart
