I found this,

From Junkscience.com

Where to start? Earlier this month we had announcement of a previously unknown vortex in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, dramatically increasing mixing between surface and deep water -- as yet it is unknown whether this might increase or decrease absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide but it certainly shows models do not represent the real world. If the case is one of carbon being returned to atmosphere faster than previously estimated then the Southern Ocean never was absorbing the amount thought (the "missing" carbon is going somewhere as yet undetermined) or, equally likely, this mechanism enhances the ability of the Southern Ocean to transport carbon to deep ocean layers -- so the Southern Ocean is either less important for atmospheric absorption or it's capable of greater absorption than previously estimated. Both these possibilities indicate less of a "problem" than had been thought.

Let's assume, for a moment, that the above hand-wringer is accurate and the Great Southern Ocean is saturating, coming to the end of its atmospheric carbon absorbing ways. Implied then is that fears of accelerating oceanic acidification are unfounded if the oceans absorb progressively less carbon from the atmosphere as they "saturate" and, contrary to recent fears, corals and shellfish are quite safe, well able to build their homes as they have for hundreds of millions of years, through vastly higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the current desperately low ones. Again, a claimed "problem" appears less than previously proposed.

One thing guaranteed to be endlessly reiterated will be the concept of 'positive feedback', the 'magnifier' required to make the negligible empirically measured warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide into a potential problem. Usually this takes the form of atmospheric water vapor increase as both evaporation increases and the atmosphere warms (and can thus hold more water vapor), resulting in an increase in the most prolific and important of greenhouse gases and net greenhouse effect but it can be and is also presented as 'loss of sinks' (absorption capacity) leading to more rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide leading to increase in greenhouse effect. No one actually knows the net sign of Earth's total greenhouse feedback mechanisms but the global warming industry always uses positive factors with a median estimate of 2.5 (this is how they make a maximum estimate of +1.2 K for a doubling of pre-IR CO2 into a 'median estimate' of +3.0 K). Models also use absurdly high 'climate sensitivity factors' in the range of 0.75 � 0.25 K (0.5-1.0 K) per Watt per meter squared change in forcing although empirical measure tells us these factors are 5-10 times too large. In fact there's no real need to get excited about models and hypothetical 'positive feedback' when we can simply observe what the planet does in response to an unmasked warming event and the heating and cooling cycle it undergoes each and every year. The bottom line is that the warming effect of increased carbon dioxide is small and declining.

We never cease to be amazed at the media's dutiful regurgitation of contradictory, even mutually exclusive fear-mongering, all allegedly caused by anthropogenic global warming. Are they so myopic they do not realize they publish mutually exclusive positions drawn from the same trivial changes observed? Or do they just not care and will publish anything demonstrating the unworthiness of humans in their desperate feelings of guilt as parasitic entities living to the detriment of the Great Earth Mother/Gaia/Tree Spirit thingy?

The only things we are moderately well-convinced of are that the planet is not currently as cool as it was in the Little Ice Age, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising as they do after every cool period and humans are probably helping this to occur. Upon this an entire disaster industry is built. Go figure!

I saw a movie a few weeks ago which combined themes from about a dozen different different other disaster movies.

This paper reminds me of that movie. Ozone, CO2, CFC's, wind storms, global warming. Climate scientists seem to be falling all over themselves trying to outdo each other with their disaster scenarios.

I have to wonder how much excess CO2 and Methane is being emitted by humans due to AGW panic?

Jim, is there some reason why we should pay attention to an analysis by a fossil fuel industry PR guy without a science background? Just curious.

CO2 makes up 3.6% of the greenhouse gases and man contributes to .12% of the CO2. Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases. Why isn't there attacka on leprechauns for those rainbows that contribute more to the greenhouse effect?

Why do AGW "true believers" stoop to assaulting the credentials of those with whom they disagree, even posting false information in the process?

For the record, Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com is not a "fossil fuel industry PR guy without a science background" as Steve Bloom would have us believe.

Since Mr. Bloom is "curious" here are some of Mr., or should I say Dr., Milloy's credentials:

Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.

If Mr. Bloom finds flaws in Mr. Milloy's scientific arguments then, by all means, let's hear them. But, to falsely discredit the messenger in an effort to raise doubts about the message is nothing more than a cheap shot.

By the way, Mr. Bloom, how do you feel about Al Gore's credentials? Does Mr. Gore hold any "science" degrees that aren't honorary?

Rick,

How do you feel about Mr. Milloy's belief that the World Trade Center would not have collapsed if the absestos hadn't been removed? Do you want to defend that statement?

Do you think -- like Steve Milloy does -- that asbestos isn't harmful?

Do you think -- like Steve Milloy does -- that the EPA's classification of second-hand smoke has a carcinogen is, as Milloy puts it, "a joke?"

Do you celebrate the death of environmentalists with a post on your website called "Obituary of the Day?" No? Well, Milloy does this all the time.

By the way, what are Milloy's "scientific credentials," Rick? His website is a cut-and-paste hackjob from various other websites, not unlike the Drudge Report site.

You look pathetic defending this guy, Rick.

Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.

You're joking, right?

From wikipedia:
The Juris Doctor is a post-baccalaureate first professional degree program in law which has chosen to use the title of "doctor" in its name. In the U.S. many professions (including for example Chiropractic, podiatry, physical therapy, etc.) have decided to use the name "doctor" in the title of their basic first professional degrees. Despite the use of the name "doctor", all these degrees including the law degree, are first-professional degrees which train individuals for practice in a given field and are not graduate research degrees such as the Ph.D. [11]. The titling of first professional degrees as "doctorates" is mostly an American practice that is not utilized in most other countries. In many other countries, the equivalent degree is often a bachelor's (even if it is a second bachelors degree) or master's degree. Many countries award doctorates only for academic research degrees.(emphasis mine)

"Dr." Milloy has NO ... N-O... scientific credentials.

Steve Bloom:
The topic here is "Filling the Sink" and Milloy raises some very interesting points. Why don't you challenge his views on this topic instead of engaging in an "I Hate Steve Milloy" rant.

Milloy has degrees in natural and health sciences; don't you count those as science degrees? And what about Al Gore's credentials? Milloy has challenged Mr. Gore to debate him on global warming but Mr. Gore refuses. Ever wonder why?

If you don't respect someone who at least has degrees in the field of science then how in the world can you defend a politician like Gore, assuming that you do? Now there's something curious.

Milloy has degrees in natural and health sciences; don't you count those as science degrees? And what about Al Gore's credentials? Milloy has challenged Mr. Gore to debate him on global warming but Mr. Gore refuses. Ever wonder why?

Milloy's degrees in natural and health sciences count as exactly what they are -- no more and no less. They are a BA in Natural Sciences and a Masters of Health Sciences in Biostatistics. Neither is sufficient to, for example, hold a tenure-track position in an academic environment. Neither constitutes "credentials" in the sense that, for example, Dr. Lindzen -- a legitimately credentialed skeptic -- is credentialed.

Mr. Gore does not claim to be a scientist. Mr. Gore does, however, freely and accurately attribute his information to credentialed scientists. Like those scientists, Mr. Gore also freely admits to and corrects misquotes and errors when they occur. The scientists that Mr. Gore quotes, unlike Milloy and his ilk, eagerly jettison mistaken theory and incorrect data as soon as they are shown to be mistaken and incorrect, and eagerly update them with more accurate information as new knowlege is acquired.

Milloy has challenged Mr. Gore to debate him on global warming but Mr. Gore refuses. Ever wonder why?
To paraphrase an Australian scientist's answer to a similar debate challenge -- "Because such a debate would enhance Milloy's CV far more than Gore's."

Rick, the problem is that Milloy raises *no* interesting points. His entire discussion is an intentional misunderstanding of the paper.

Steve Bloom:
Milloy points out that if this theory is true then another one widely touted by AGW alarmists must necessarily be false. Now, I find that very interesting.

Okay, forget your arch enemy Milloy and shed some light on Laura's explanation of the researchers findings as repeated below:

"The winds, the scientists say, are increasing due to the depletion in upper-atmosphere ozone over the Southern Ocean, which has produced large temperature changes throughout the atmosphere, and the uneven nature of global warming, which has also resulted in tighter temperature gradients across the region. The winds mix natural carbon which is normally held in deep waters to the surface, which reduces the surface water's capacity to absorb additional carbon."

The researchers make these findings sound final and yet we know that ozone layers thin and thicken at different times of year. If the change in winds is caused by changes in ozone then won't the Southern Ocean regain its ability to act as a carbon sink? Doesn't this make the reaearcher's claim that "this is serious" less of a problem than it realy is? Isn't this a case of researchers observing a cyclical peneomenon and then blowing it out of proportion by failing to report the rest of the story? And how do large temperature changes throughout the atmosphere result in tighter temperature gradients throughout the region?

If you can explain this then I will personally nominate you for the Nobel prize in science.

Hi Guys,

Well that was a fine discussion. I see nobody ever even cared to respond to the article just spew about Mr. Milloy. If you want to believe in something take up religion. Don't believe in theories because they can be proven wrong. A theory is a theory and GW is a theory not fact. When somebody can prove to me with 99% that this is what is happening then it is just a theory. I personally think that it is the sun and the ocean oscillations that are causing the current warming and we should know in a few years if this correct since they are predicting a cooling around 2015. So we will see with real results and not "models". Thanks again guys