The Polar Beer - The Poster Child of Global Warming

The polar bear has been the poster child of global warming.  I watched a sad show last night called Ice Bear about the struggle of polar bears, and one bear in particular called Ice Bear.  It turns out that Ice Bear had a rough year because of a long summer but he survived.  In his survival he did a lot of new things like climb cliffs to get to baby birds, eat baby whales stranded on the rocks, and get beaten up by some walruses when he tried to eat their babies.  But, another polar bear learned to follow the walruses and attack them when they stopped on rocks to rest.  Another female polar bear turned to cannibalism to feed herself and her babies.  In short, the ones that survived adapted to the effects of the longer summer.

But then I did a little internet searching and discovered that 
there does not seem to be definitive studies showing if polar bear populations are growing or declining.  Surely, we before they used him as poster child of the effects of global warming, they would have converted their theories about how global warming was killing polar bears to some counting before making him the poster child.  The primary argument is that their habitat (ice over the water) is declining, so their population will decline. And apparently there is some evidence that the younger polar bear population is under stress. 

There has been a general decline in the size of the polar cap over the Arctic since about 1980.  But, in 2013 it reversed and grew by 60%.  I understand that it also grew in 2014 but I have not seen the data yet.  This does not necessarily negate the global warming theory since yearly variations may override long term trends, but then on the other hand it might.  

As a reasonably good scientist in my own area, I am annoyed when others (like my bosses) make superficial judgments based on limited observations backed by inaccurate science.  So, I realize that I am not a meteorologist or a climatologist so I tend to give the experts respect in their field.  That does not include Al Gore because he has not spent his career as a scientist and is only fame to claim in my book is always voting yes for every bill ever submitted to him. But, scientists do not usually vote as a group as they have been lately about climate change.  Scientist typically propose theories to explain the data better than their cohorts and then debate it while looking for more evidence. 

One also has to be careful when money gets involved in science.  As far as I have been able to find there has been hundreds of grants to study potential bad effects of global warming and no grants to study the potential good effects of global warming.  Does anyone know of any exceptions to this?  There are only CONS to global warming, REALLY?  Sounds like the person handing out the grants might be biased.

Sea level rise seems to present strong evidence of global warming, but it ain't as simple as it looks, see this article for an example of the complexity. It turns out forever we have been going through mini-ice ages followed by a warming period because of variations in the earth's orbit and variables in the wobble and tilt of the axis. In the warming period ice all over the planet melts and sea levels rise.  So the argument goes that this time it is rising faster than normal because of industrial activity.  Maybe so ... so does that just mean we get to the end game (when most of the ice on the planet is gone) sooner, or is the end game somehow different?  Again, I trust there are some scientists out there that could answer these questions better than me.  Trouble is, I don't hear the hard questions being asked, much less being answered. 

Does that mean I don't think we need some changes in the way we use energy.  I still think it is a finite resource that needs to be used wisely and with consideration for future generations.  As far as I know, there are not going to be another dinosaur age to make more oil, etc.  I think taxing energy uses makes a lot of sense especially compared to our present destructive income tax system.  

Here is what I believe to be true:

1. The planet is in a warming cycle.
2. Some of the warming is caused by human activity.
3. The warming would continue (possibly at a slower rate) if humans were removed from the equation. 
4. Warming of the planet will put some people and animals under stress, some will adapt, some will not. 
5.  The Arctic Ice cap seems to shrinking (last two years are an exception).
6. The Antarctic Ice Cap is not (yet) shrinking and is actually expanding slightly. (The scientists say there are good reasons for this that do not negate the theory of global warming ... I will accept that for now especially since we seem to be in a normal warming cycle.)

What I don't know to be true:

1.  What is the end-game.  What does the planet look like after it gets hotter.  For one, I assume there will be no land ice?  What else?  How does this compare to previous warming cycles? Are we just accelerating what will happen (no land ice) or will the end game be different if we get there faster? 
2.  How much faster will we get to the end game (no land ice) because of CO2?  For example, if we reduce CO2 will we get there ten years later anyway, or is it a 100 years later?
3. What are the beneficial effects of a warmer planet. Does a warmer planet mean the next ice age will be less severe?  Does a warmer planet means there will be more rain since the partial pressure of water increases with temperature.  I assume some people that now need more rain will get it?  Who?
4.  Who needs to adapt, people and animals, and how does the cost of adapting compare to the cost of slowing CO2 production?  I assume some mixed strategy will be optimum.  Has this study been done?

In conclusion, I still tend to believe the experts, but how much as the message from the experts been tainted by the political pressure of those in charge?  Who profits from global warming be real and us responding to cut CO2 emissions?  In short, I guess I want to hear a debate among scientists and hear the pros and cons and a cost benefit study of various scenarios.  Perhaps the science is not good enough to do such studies, and if so, then the call to action may have to be modified.  This is not an all or nothing issue as it has been painted.  What steps are wise to take now, what steps should be taken conditional on some key outcomes ... like the Arctic resuming its shrinkage or the Antarctic starting to shrink, etc.  

Of course, we have to realize that our dysfunctional government is not going to do anything right now, so this will give us a couple of years to continue studying global warming.  One final note, maximizing the U.S.'s GNP is not the only criteria/value to consider in this debate.  How we affect other countries and other animals on this planet should be part of the discussion.