I find it incredibly sad it has made the top post.

The article does not link to any peer review studies to prove it's point, which to me means it's probably bunk, taking a know issue and enlarging it to sensationalise.

And it's sad people fall for this.

With a little bit of research on your own you can find out for yourself that this is an incredibly important issue that affects everyone on the planet, and there is nothing "sensational" about the way it is reported.

Yet you seriously haven't included any links to this easy to find research the we are at an all time acidification high in 300 million years?

Pretty sure the title might actually get it right unlike the actual article "Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years"

It is the rate of acidification, not the acidification itself that is high.

Not really sure what your point is here. But anyway, here is the link to the report: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm

Listed in the Guardian's article. Peer reviewed source material is at the bottom of each of the reports.

It is the top post.

We did it! Maybe there is hope...

I don't know where you live, but the Swedish Green party still want to immediately start phasing out nuclear power. More CO2 for the world.

(If the seas do have an ecological crash which makes the remaining eco systems go down, then any surviving Green party members will probably argue the advantage of this, pushing their carts down "The Road".)

So, no hope. :-) :-(

I don't see nuclear power as a great solution. The waste contaminates the environment for thousands of years. And the system is not fault-tolerant, failing in ways which render the environment uninhabitable for who knows how long (Chernobyl, Fukushima).

Yeah, it doesn't generate CO2. But at least you can live in a hotter world, can't live with nuclear waste/fallout.

(Also, we don't know that a hotter climate is bad, we've never tried it before)

Chernobyl is habitable. It's a bit of a land mine, as there're some places with extremely high radiation, but on average it's fine. Wild life feel very good there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast...

To make Chernobyl comfortable for people, a cleaning effort is needed, but it's of manageable size.

Are you sure that's an objective assessment of the relative risks, numerically speaking, and not just a common human failing of seeing slow acting, nebulous threats like climate change as being less dangerous than fast and scary threats like nuclear disasters? Nuclear seems the less dangerous bedfellow to me.

It doesn't matter if it's a great solution; it's the only solution we have right now.

It's not valid to judge the "fault tolerance" of nuclear power, or its safety in general, by Chernobyl and Fukushima.