Hob: People who are knowledgeable of climate change do not think we are all going to die due to global warming. It is not a 'popular belief', as you put it, in the scientific community. If you want credible actual science that shows we are warming the planet let me provide it for you.
First there is a difference between solar and terrestrial radiation based on temperature. The Sun emits shortwave radiation, or radiation shorter than 4 microns, while the Earth emits radiation above 4 microns known as longwave radiation. Certain gases, known as greenhouse gases, have the ability to absorb and re-radiate specific frequencies of radiation based on their absorption frequency. To see what frequencies various greenhouse gases absorb at we can go to http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php and look it up ourselves by doing the following.
1. Select 'Group by Molecule' if it is not already selected.
2. Select the following in 'Spectral Range': Units - wavenumber, Lower limit - 400cm^-1, Upper limit - 1400cm^-1 (This is the approximate area for the black body radiation curve of the Earth)
3. Select the following in 'Options': 'scale by atmospheric abundance', Atmosphere - standard, Scale - linear, Symbols - sticks
4. From the select menu under 'Species' select the following gases: H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, N2O (These are the five most prominent greenhouse gases.)
After you hit the plot button you can see that the major absorption band associated with CO2 is centered at 667cm^-1. To find out what would occur if atmospheric CO2 increases we can look at an online university textbook - http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf - and scroll down to figure 4-5 near the bottom. We see that the band associated with CO2 absorption gets wider not deeper. From this knowledge we can look at measurements of specific frequencies to see what is the actually causing the current warming.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1
Page 3987: Graphs depicting measurements of outbound radiation at specific wavelengths. The left side of the graph shows the measurements that are attributed to one half of the band associated with CO2 absorption.
Page 3990. Graphs depicting changes in outbound radiation between the three data sets and their statistical significance.
From this we see most of the warming is due to CO2. Next we have to find out where that CO2 is coming from. We know that the atmosphere is currently increasing at a rate of 2ppm/year on average as measured at Moana Loa.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv
1ppm is equal to 2.13 billion tons of carbon. To convert this into CO2 and include the oxygen molecules we multiply this by 3.664. 1ppm is roughly equivalent to 7.8 billion tonnes of CO2. Therefor 2ppm is roughly equivalent to 15.6 billion tonnes of CO2. This is what the atmosphere is increasing by.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3
Next we look at estimates of human emissions. These numbers are just from cement manufacturing and fossil fuel burning. In 2009 we saw a fall in emissions, at just over 30 billion tonnes, due to a declining economy.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html
Since then emissions have increased to over 33.5 billion tonnes annually.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html
We are responsible for the increase in CO2 which is the main cause of the current warming. Also you seem to be questioning whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Warmer air parcels have the ability to hold more water vapour. Perhaps you need to study up more on the water cycle because 'based on physics' you are wrong.
The problems associated with climate change include increased flooding due to greater rainfall in some areas of the world while others will see increased heatwaves and drought, both are not good for agriculture or fresh water resources. Weather shifts, changing storm tracks, increased wind speeds, and so on are also a major possibility.
Edit: And for those that give me a thumbs down I'd like you to post an explanation of why.