This acidification nonsense gets little attention simply because it is biologically a total non-issue. As far as I know no one seriously disputes mollusk fossils dating back some 500 million years, nor does there appear any dispute that atmospheric carbon dioxide was between 4,000 and 5,000 parts per million at the end of the Cambrian Period. Obviously these calcifiers managed to lay down shells then so levels at least an order of magnitude higher than anticipated now did not reduce ocean alkalinity (ocean acidification does not mean the oceans will actually become acidic, merely less alkaline) to the point where calcifiers were seriously troubled (in fact these creatures evolved then).
Atmospheric CO2 levels were similarly high through the Ordovician. Note that fauna of the period included large diversity of corals, bryozoans, bivalves and gastropods (we know most about these because shells and skeletal remains fossilise best). The biosphere works just fine with much higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- only people with nothing better to do worry about it.

Steven Watkinson article gathers together some of the more recent studies on the bits and pieces of the living systems of our living planet. The article shows that Watkinson is at the cutting edge of public concern about the interaction of humans and their environment.

Good science often leaves the reader asking more questions than were answered in the first place. Watkinson’s article raises many questions as the living planet earth is a complex system. Dealing with complex systems, such as a living planet will create more and more questions please refer to John Gribbin’s book, “Deep Simplicity”

Science, particularly biology has always interested me. Of equal fascination to me is people’s blind beliefs in gods and markets, religion and economics, these combinations of beliefs appear to be held by people who have a pathological hatred of the Labour Party and left wing politics in general.

The combination of strong beliefs in religious and economics have result in great tragedies such as the mishandling of the Irish potato famine in 1840’s. Now that we live in a global village, we cannot afford such mistakes. The World is now too overpopulated and our economies too interconnected to allow blind beliefs and paranoia to determine our collective future.

Mr Right reveals his paranoia with the statement “The Labor Government, by nature of its philosophy, is a bully”. Clearly the question of who is in power appears to interfere with some people’s ability work towards solving our common problems.

It is time to think and act outside the squares of party politics, greed and blind belief systems.

Now that we have a far better understanding of the planet and human behaviour should the Australian constitution be totally rewritten to include sustainability and population issues, should we go further and include protection of all that was here before the white invasion of this continent?

What should Australia’s role be in our global village? Enlightened leaders, or the poor white trash of south east Asia?

It is well over half a lifetime since I did my tertiary chemistry education but the maths of acidification has me a little baffled.
My calculation is that the oceans outweigh the atmosphere by a factor of about three hundred. We appear to be are worrying about an atmospheric concentration of carbom dioxide approaching 0.05% of the weight of the atmosphere which if absorbed by the oceans would amount to 0.00017% of the weight of the oceans. Is that significant when the present ocean pH is about 8.2?

Foyle,

The answer is the CO2 dissolves on the surface - obviously. It takes long while peculate kilometres down to the ocean floor. If you look at the Wikipedia link given in the article, you will notice they always specifically say "surface pH".

BarryH,

Repaid changes in ecosystems are almost universally accompanied by equally equally rapid changes in the life forms that use them, usually starting with mass die-offs. There is nothing contentions about that. Nor is it contentions we won't like some of the changes. As for your point that some mollusks made it OK through the last last time we had high CO2 levels, you are just repeating what Watkinson said in the article: "sea life of some kind has clearly survived much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 since the earth began". So again, no one is disputing some sea life will adapt, the concern is for those that won't.

Here we go again! Another scare from a scaremongering AGWer.

How silly do these people think we are?

Global warming is morphing into climate change and rising sea levels are morphing into acidification.

What are these people on? Acid?

Which reminds me. Since the polar ice cap has melted where has the water gone cos sea levels haven't risen? Oh that's right the oceans are cooling and water contracts as it cools ... obvious ... right.

Steve J,

One of the lessons of history, in fact probably the most important, is that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

People from the right of politics understand this instinctively, and yes maybe it is just a "strong belief" but I would argue that it is a belief based on sound empirical and historical evidence.

History also shows that for the vast bulk of civilisation, there was a tendency for political leaders to accumulate more power, not less. So if you really want to see policies "outside the square", then you should be in favour of less government, not more.

You also need to rethink your religious faith in "enlightened leaders." They do not exist. Never have. Never will. They are as real as invisible pink unicorns.