[Simple]

Climate has rapid changes.

Yes it does that fastest GLOBAL change is 2C in 1000 years, Greenland however has changed by several degrees in a centurary but this wasn't a global event, find a global change as rapid as 2C in a hundred years, i haven't been able to, it must be global, the Arctic is presently heading for 4-5C in 100 years and the Greenland events are due to changes in the THC which causes very rapid unique changes in this region since Panama.

The desert example is precisely the point.

Your original point was that deserts are colder than Mississippi swamps at night therefore water vapour isn't amplifying the effect of CO2 infra red warming. This is a typical misrepresentation put forward to confuse the issue. The desert region has little water in its system where as the swamp has loads, this water absorbs heat all day due to the massive Specific capacity of the water, this heat is stored in the water and then released at night, not much water not much heat stored cold nights lots of water lots of heat stored warmer nights. This however has little to do with the overall system and is a red herring that CO2 isn't causing warming as an example it is like saying if you leave the door of the fridge open the inside is warmer because the engine isn't working.

The average temperature at night in the desert over time will be higher when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere due to its ability to absord heat and warm the atmosphere as you clearly know as water as you say does the same thing only better, thankfully or the world would be an ice ball. The amount of water in the atmosphere is huge, and therefore changes in the overall water content of the atmosphere are small. CO2 however absorbs the heat and warms the atmosphere arround it, this warming allows that atmosphere to evaporate more water vapour in a non linear way, and therefore more actual water vapour is held in the atmosphere and there is a greater overall warming effect, this is well recognised and studied and it enhances the effect of CO2 warming by a factor of 2 or so. The warmer the atmosphere gets the more water vapour it holds the hotter it gets this relationship is none linear, which is often the case in a complex system and precisely why the very small changes in the sun's intensity over 1000 years can have such dramtic effects.

Your numbers of 1w/m2 versus 1.6w/m2 is based upon numbers that are very suspect.

IPCC 2007, Pielke web blog, Hansen science sept 2006, you should read that paper explains how the tropics arround East India and Western pacific not the poles are a lot more accurate measures of global temperature changes as they are not subject to THC variations and when you look at temperature changes there 0.2C a decade is uniquely rapid and most skeptics even feel that this event is more rapid than previous, Paradox here feels it is due to the natural forcings alignments including ones we don't know yet like magnetic fields whose influences as you know are pure speculation and even if they aren't they always been present yet this event is unique.

As for some sort of steep slope on the log curve. That's for when co2 levels are so low as to permit the vast majority of the blocked radiation bands to make it through the atmosphere without being blocked. Then increasing the concentration will cut down on the amount blocked. We're at the concentration point where co2's major effects occur within 100 ft. We're so far into the flat part of the logrithmic curve that it isn't funny.

CO2 levels were lowest ever in the Co2 record of the world between 200-290 for the last 650,000years at least, therefore we have increased very low levels, to still very low levels, but enough to increase the forcing by 0.6w/m2 in less than 50 years, and climatologists can do maths.

As for the clouds the link to cosmic rays is tenuous and real climate and climatologists in UK feel it is very over exaggerated.

It's total BS. One can tell very easily by trying to run a solar panel or a solar oven on a cloudy day.

I've only ever read 30-40% reflectance and cirrus clouds less than that they let short radiation through and the water in the clouds is also heated causing a heating effect and when worked by LIn et al in 2001 the clouds where a positive forcing.

Grasping at cosmic rays is rather odd to me, when GHG as clear, where they come from, how much, what effect they have all very thoroughly investigated.

As for global warming pushing money to the east thats ecomonics mate not global warming, China can produce things cheaper than the west and USA isn't exactly putting much legisation to stop GHG emissions in THe USA has a massive trade deficit with China the rise of the East is nigh your right.