Thousands of activists block London roads to demand action on climate change

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Ocean acidification is as variable as local weather. It changes according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, the part of the ocean that is measured, the depth of the ocean, and so on. The magnitude of such variations over very short periods of time is far greater than the estimated average increase in the acidification of the ocean surfaces during the past 150 years.

 

Not only do the oceans cover a much larger area of the planet's surface than land, they also have a far greater number of active volcanoes at any point in time, spewing CO2 into the ocean waters. It is estimated there are over 3 million submarine volcanoes (not all active at the same time, of course).

 

Fish and other sea creatures that can move, are smart enough to move to conditions (or pH levels) that best suit them, unlike most humans who are stuck in their homes like coral reefs. ????

Not really a justification for inaction. What about the poor buggers that can't move far?

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not really a justification for inaction. What about the poor buggers that can't move far?

And not just that. Not all species of fish will be able to make the transition either. For one thing lots of these fish depend on mangroves and coral reefs for their nurseries.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Not really a justification for inaction. What about the poor buggers that can't move far?

And not just that. Not all species of fish will be able to make the transition either. For one thing lots of these fish depend on mangroves and coral reefs for their nurseries.

 

I see. So never mind the poor human buggers; the billion or more people who are either starving or malnourished, and all those who live in inadequate homes in dangerous locations subject to flooding and hurricanes.

 

Let's spend trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions in the hope that a few reefs in tropical areas will be saved, and let's ignore the possibility that the heating and acidification of the oceans might be mostly due to submarine volcanic activity.

 

That doesn't sound like a sensible or compassionate policy to me

 

https://www.iceagenow.info/three-million-underwater-volcanoes-wrong/

 

"Most estimates of volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission are woefully low, says consulting geologist Timothy Casey.
An enormous and unmeasured amount of carbon dioxide degases from volcanoes, mostly submarine."

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

 

I see. So never mind the poor human buggers; the billion or more people who are either starving or malnourished, and all those who live in inadequate homes in dangerous locations subject to flooding and hurricanes.

 

Let's spend trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions in the hope that a few reefs in tropical areas will be saved, and let's ignore the possibility that the heating and acidification of the oceans might be mostly due to submarine volcanic activity.

 

That doesn't sound like a sensible or compassionate policy to me

 

https://www.iceagenow.info/three-million-underwater-volcanoes-wrong/

 

"Most estimates of volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission are woefully low, says consulting geologist Timothy Casey.
An enormous and unmeasured amount of carbon dioxide degases from volcanoes, mostly submarine."

No. You don't see. Submarine volcanics have been a factor for millions of years. 

 

And I did not say that other problems should be ignored. In fact, they are linked.

 

Stop making stuff up.

[VincentRJ]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No. You don't see. Submarine volcanics have been a factor for millions of years. 

 

So have climate change and extreme weather events occurred for millions of years. Reefs are always either growing or receding. As the ocean warms in the tropics, perhaps causing some reefs to disappear, other reefs spring up in colder parts closer to the poles.

 

Stop making stuff up.

 

Ah! Now I understand you. You probably think that I make things up because that's what you do. I always read both sides of the argument. Everything I write about climate is from research that I've read.

 

https://volcanoeblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/hello-world/

 

"Submarine volcanoes work differently to land volcanoes because for a submarine volcano there is an unlimited supply of  water to cool down the lava. The lava is cooled down almost instantly creating a shell of rock called pillow lava. Deeper than about 2,000 meters, the pressure of the water is so high that it can’t boil.
 

What happens when a submarine volcano erupts?
Water around submarine volcanoes can reach up to 65 degrees Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius). The dissolved oxygen in the water mostly disappears and the carbon dioxide values increase greatly while the pH of the water drops to about 2.8 which as about the acidity of battery acid."

[bristolboy]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

So have climate change and extreme weather events occurred for millions of years. Reefs are always either growing or receding. As the ocean warms in the tropics, perhaps causing some reefs to disappear, other reefs spring up in colder parts closer to the poles.

 

 

 

 

Ah! Now I understand you. You probably think that I make things up because that's what you do. I always read both sides of the argument. Everything I write about climate is from research that I've read.

 

https://volcanoeblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/hello-world/

 

"Submarine volcanoes work differently to land volcanoes because for a submarine volcano there is an unlimited supply of  water to cool down the lava. The lava is cooled down almost instantly creating a shell of rock called pillow lava. Deeper than about 2,000 meters, the pressure of the water is so high that it can’t boil.
 

What happens when a submarine volcano erupts?
Water around submarine volcanoes can reach up to 65 degrees Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius). The dissolved oxygen in the water mostly disappears and the carbon dioxide values increase greatly while the pH of the water drops to about 2.8 which as about the acidity of battery acid."

As Chomper said, stop making things up:

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

[mommysboy]

I don't like what they're doing, but as one activist asked: 'What else is there to do?'.

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

So have climate change and extreme weather events occurred for millions of years. Reefs are always either growing or receding. As the ocean warms in the tropics, perhaps causing some reefs to disappear, other reefs spring up in colder parts closer to the poles.

 

 

 

 

Ah! Now I understand you. You probably think that I make things up because that's what you do. I always read both sides of the argument. Everything I write about climate is from research that I've read.

 

https://volcanoeblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/hello-world/

 

"Submarine volcanoes work differently to land volcanoes because for a submarine volcano there is an unlimited supply of  water to cool down the lava. The lava is cooled down almost instantly creating a shell of rock called pillow lava. Deeper than about 2,000 meters, the pressure of the water is so high that it can’t boil.
 

What happens when a submarine volcano erupts?
Water around submarine volcanoes can reach up to 65 degrees Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius). The dissolved oxygen in the water mostly disappears and the carbon dioxide values increase greatly while the pH of the water drops to about 2.8 which as about the acidity of battery acid."

I am quite familiar with the geological history of the earth. You are digressing from the topic. 

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As Chomper said, stop making things up:

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

Sounds about right. ????

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What are the environmentalists advocating? Seems to me they want other people to do something about it, and don't actually have any idea of what should be done, or if anything can be done.

I often read that solar is the answer, when clearly it's not, at the moment. When it's as cheap as present generators, and is 24 hours, then it will be replacing present generators.

What happened to wave generation? That's a 24 hours solution.

Actually if you go back and look at the links provided, or do some basic research yourself, you would find that solar and wind are already cheaper than coal.

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Not correct. The potential of solar energy is enormous. If the entire Sahara desert were covered with modern solar panels, it would provide about 20 times the total amount of energy currently used by the entire global population, converting all energy currently used into the electricity equivalent of kilowatt hours.

 

The issue is all about cost. The cost of energy, and the ways and the efficiency with which we use that energy, is the fundamental basis of the prosperity of mankind.

 

If you make energy more expensive, for whatever reason, then people on average, or certain target groups in our unequal societies, will inevitably be less prosperous. That's basic Physics.

But since solar and wind are already cheaper than coal, and already beginning to supplant gas, what's your point? And speaking of deserts...

Solar-Plus-Storage Beats Combined-Cycle Gas in Jordan and Morocco

Solar-plus-storage is already competitive with the world's most efficient form of gas generation in Morocco and Jordan, according to new research from Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables.

Solar on its own is much cheaper than combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in both markets, states the Solar-Plus-Storage in the Middle East and Africa market opportunity assessment published this month.

The fact that solar was still competitive with the most efficient gas technology after adding battery storage, which bumps up the cost by 126 percent, was “quite big news,” said Rory McCarthy, senior storage analyst for Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables. 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-storage-beats-combined-cycle-gas-in-jordan-and-morocco#gs.5nzyc3

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I am surprised you are having difficulty in understanding the point I made, although perhaps I shouldn't be because I'm used to climate alarmists trying to wriggle away from undeniable facts. ????

 

If solar, and renewables generally, are not taking away the demand from coal power plants, then what is? It's probably true that solar can produce electricity more cheaply than coal when the sun shines, but electricity from battery storage when the sun doesn't shine, is much more expensive than electricity from coal. Do you deny that?

 

Also, it is not only during the night that the sun doesn't shine, but quite often throughout the day during rainy periods and prolonged periods of cloudy skies.

 

An ideal location for a solar-panel farm would be a desert area, but the cost of that would be increased significantly because of the need for long power lines to transport the electricity to the cities.

 

Nevertheless, I understand that solar power and battery storage will become cheaper as the demand increases and technology progresses. This is to be expected, and I have absolutely no problem with the development of additional sources of energy whether renewables or not.

 

My concern is for the people who continue to build their homes in flood plains and areas subject to hurricanes, and kid themselves that extreme weather events will be reduced because the government is tackling climate change.

Undeniable facts, are they?

First off, I deny that solar + storage is more expensive than coal. As this link shows

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-storage-beats-combined-cycle-gas-in-jordan-and-morocco#gs.5nzyc3

. And of course, the costs of battery storage are plummeting and way ahead of where it was predicted just a few years ago.

As for the feasibility of a 100% renewable powered system, look no further than this analysis of the situation in a country and continent called australia

The link here shows how it can be done

https://theconversation.com/whats-the-net-cost-of-using-renewables-to-hit-australias-climate-target-nothing-88021

 

And here's some encouraging news:

At its current rate, Australia is on track for 50% renewable electricity in 2025

https://theconversation.com/at-its-current-rate-australia-is-on-track-for-50-renewable-electricity-in-2025-102903

 

And if you want to see just how rapidly the price of solar + storage has fallen just google this phrase:

the cost of solar plus storage per Mwh

I think you'll be relieved and delighted with the results.

 

[bristolboy]

I think the problem that denialists are currently suffering from is a kind of phantom limb syndrome. It used to be that they could cite costs as a kind of metaphorical middle finger. But even though that middle finger no longer exists they keep on flicking that defunct argument at us proponents of renewables.

[mommysboy]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think the problem that denialists are currently suffering from is a kind of phantom limb syndrome. It used to be that they could cite costs as a kind of metaphorical middle finger. But even though that middle finger no longer exists they keep on flicking that defunct argument at us proponents of renewables.

 

I think they are just a bit slow on the uptake.  That and somewhat blind to the concept of cause and effect.

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As Chomper said, stop making things up:

"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

 

Wow! Isn't that amazing. ????

 

I wasn't aware that any organisation knows how many volcanoes there are undersea, or how many are erupting at any given time, or how many are continuously leaking CO2.

 

Can you provide a link where the U.S. Geological Survey mentions how many submarine volcanoes exist and what method they used to determine that, and how they measured the leakage of CO2 from the numerous locations on the sea floor?

 

When I do an internet search on the topic I find that most of the research relates to the few land-based volcanoes that erupt now and again, as does the Scientificamerican article you linked to. The few estimates I find for the number of submarine volcanoes seem vary from 1 million to around 3.5 million.

 

However, your linked Scientificamerican article does mention the following:

 

"British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above."

 

The issue I was addressing with reference to submarine volcanoes was in connection with ocean acidification and ocean warming, not the atmosphere. Did you genuinely miss that point?
 

[impulse]

On 4/15/2019 at 6:10 PM, Snow Leopard said:

Yes, correct and I bet most of them drove there. Then they will go home to their nice heated houses and flick the switch to put the kettle on. 

 

If those are the only modes of transportation and warmth on offer, they probably did.  But there are better modes out there.  They're asking for action on those.

 

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Undeniable facts, are they?

First off, I deny that solar + storage is more expensive than coal. As this link shows

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-storage-beats-combined-cycle-gas-in-jordan-and-morocco#gs.5nzyc3

. And of course, the costs of battery storage are plummeting and way ahead of where it was predicted just a few years ago.

As for the feasibility of a 100% renewable powered system, look no further than this analysis of the situation in a country and continent called australia

The link here shows how it can be done

https://theconversation.com/whats-the-net-cost-of-using-renewables-to-hit-australias-climate-target-nothing-88021

 

And here's some encouraging news:

At its current rate, Australia is on track for 50% renewable electricity in 2025

https://theconversation.com/at-its-current-rate-australia-is-on-track-for-50-renewable-electricity-in-2025-102903

 

And if you want to see just how rapidly the price of solar + storage has fallen just google this phrase:

the cost of solar plus storage per Mwh

I think you'll be relieved and delighted with the results.

 

Excellent news! Can I now expect electricity prices in Australia to start falling to the levels they were a decade ago, before solar and wind took off? ????

 

As I've mentioned before, I have no objection to the development of alternative energy sources. My concern relates to the failure of governments, particularly the Australia government, to protect its citizens from extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and cyclones by ensuring there are a sufficient number of dams, and by modifying the landscape to avoid flash flooding, and by changing the building regulations, and so on.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

 

I see. So never mind the poor human buggers; the billion or more people who are either starving or malnourished, and all those who live in inadequate homes in dangerous locations subject to flooding and hurricanes.

 

Let's spend trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions in the hope that a few reefs in tropical areas will be saved, and let's ignore the possibility that the heating and acidification of the oceans might be mostly due to submarine volcanic activity.

 

That doesn't sound like a sensible or compassionate policy to me

 

https://www.iceagenow.info/three-million-underwater-volcanoes-wrong/

 

"Most estimates of volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission are woefully low, says consulting geologist Timothy Casey.
An enormous and unmeasured amount of carbon dioxide degases from volcanoes, mostly submarine."

Are you really referencing iceagenow.info, a one man show climate denial website set up and run by Robert Felix to promote his climate denial book.

 

Oh yes you are.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Wow! Isn't that amazing. ????

 

I wasn't aware that any organisation knows how many volcanoes there are undersea, or how many are erupting at any given time, or how many are continuously leaking CO2.

 

Can you provide a link where the U.S. Geological Survey mentions how many submarine volcanoes exist and what method they used to determine that, and how they measured the leakage of CO2 from the numerous locations on the sea floor?

 

When I do an internet search on the topic I find that most of the research relates to the few land-based volcanoes that erupt now and again, as does the Scientificamerican article you linked to. The few estimates I find for the number of submarine volcanoes seem vary from 1 million to around 3.5 million.

 

However, your linked Scientificamerican article does mention the following:

 

"British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above."

 

The issue I was addressing with reference to submarine volcanoes was in connection with ocean acidification and ocean warming, not the atmosphere. Did you genuinely miss that point?
 

Antarctica is a sub continent, a land mass on which is ice.

 

There are no submarine volcanoes under Antarctica.

 

Unless of course Robert Felix has convinced you via his one man show climate denial website that the Antarctica land mass is itself floating on an ocean.

 

 

[elmrfudd]

the hoax of climate change, the hoax of co2 being the driving climate change factor...

 

and the sheep dumb enough to buy the crap science behind the hoax.....

 

amazing lack of common sense

 

[vogie]

Adam Boulton from Sky News, interviewed this zombie from the Climate Change group, sorry cannot find the full interview, but trust me it was equally embarrassing.

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Wow! Isn't that amazing. ????

 

I wasn't aware that any organisation knows how many volcanoes there are undersea, or how many are erupting at any given time, or how many are continuously leaking CO2.

 

Can you provide a link where the U.S. Geological Survey mentions how many submarine volcanoes exist and what method they used to determine that, and how they measured the leakage of CO2 from the numerous locations on the sea floor?

 

When I do an internet search on the topic I find that most of the research relates to the few land-based volcanoes that erupt now and again, as does the Scientificamerican article you linked to. The few estimates I find for the number of submarine volcanoes seem vary from 1 million to around 3.5 million.

 

However, your linked Scientificamerican article does mention the following:

 

"British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above."

 

The issue I was addressing with reference to submarine volcanoes was in connection with ocean acidification and ocean warming, not the atmosphere. Did you genuinely miss that point?
 

Here's a link to a paper by a USGS that shows why it's massively unlikely that undersea volcanoes are making much of a contribution to ocean acidification and warming

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

And there's also the principle of Occam's razor. How atmospheric CO2 reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid is very basic science. You think if the levels of ocean acidfication didn't track with the increase in CO levels in the atmosphere someone might have noticed? Or do you believe that just coincidentlally in the last 150 years there's been a huge upsurge in volcanic activity that tracks closely with the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions? You're grasping at straws

[VincentRJ]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Are you really referencing iceagenow.info, a one man show climate denial website set up and run by Robert Felix to promote his climate denial book.

 

Oh yes you are.

It was a humorous link - "Three million underwater volcanoes can't be wrong." I was poking fun at the often-quoted alarmist slogan, "97% of Climatologists can't be wrong." 
 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It was a humorous link - "Three million underwater volcanoes can't be wrong." I was poking fun at the often-quoted alarmist slogan, "97% of Climatologists can't be wrong." 
 

I guess trying to be funny is easier than dealing with the scientific consensus.

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent news! Can I now expect electricity prices in Australia to start falling to the levels they were a decade ago, before solar and wind took off? ????

 

As I've mentioned before, I have no objection to the development of alternative energy sources. My concern relates to the failure of governments, particularly the Australia government, to protect its citizens from extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and cyclones by ensuring there are a sufficient number of dams, and by modifying the landscape to avoid flash flooding, and by changing the building regulations, and so on.

Let's say your baker gets a new supplier of flour who's providing her with 50 percent of the total she uses but she keeps on charging the same price. Is that the suppliers' responsibility or the bakers? Of course, that baker has lots of other expenses that affect the cost of bread. Do you think that maybe the wholesale cost of energy is only one factor in determining the retail price of electricity? What about the failure of the Australian power system to provide more interconnection capacity of its grid? Moreover, it's still early days. I think that now about 85% of Australia's energy comes from fossil fuel, mostly coal.

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

the hoax of climate change, the hoax of co2 being the driving climate change factor...

 

and the sheep dumb enough to buy the crap science behind the hoax.....

 

amazing lack of common sense

 

Thanks for all the hard data contained here. 

[nauseus]

36 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

the hoax of climate change, the hoax of co2 being the driving climate change factor...

 

and the sheep dumb enough to buy the crap science behind the hoax.....

 

amazing lack of common sense

 

Climate change is fact, it is happening everywhere, it always has but not normally as rapidly as recent years.

 

The real question is "what is the main driver of that change?". CO₂ levels have risen coincident with average global temperatures over recorded history but this does not necessarily mean that it is the main driver of climate change.  

[RickBradford]

Quote

Adam Boulton from Sky News, interviewed this zombie from the Climate Change group, sorry cannot find the full interview, but trust me it was equally embarrassing.

 

The person in question is Robin Boardman-Pattison from Extinction Rebellion, yet another extremely privileged person desperate to attain Victimhood status.

 

It's always these entitled, middle-class, know-it-all socialists, desperate to avoid being  labelled an 'Oppressor', who clog up the streets with their silly antics. Embarrassing on-screen and off.

[bert bloggs]

I was looking at the pictures in the papers and thinking that the police basically are doing nothing to clear these people and when removing a woman from the top of a train they put a crash helmet and goggles on her ,and some loon who had glued Himself to a door was put in protective goggles before they released him, God knows how Britain will end up with these namby pamby ways , in my day the would have just flung em off the train . the west is doomed .

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Wow! Isn't that amazing. ????

 

I wasn't aware that any organisation knows how many volcanoes there are undersea, or how many are erupting at any given time, or how many are continuously leaking CO2.

 

Can you provide a link where the U.S. Geological Survey mentions how many submarine volcanoes exist and what method they used to determine that, and how they measured the leakage of CO2 from the numerous locations on the sea floor?

 

When I do an internet search on the topic I find that most of the research relates to the few land-based volcanoes that erupt now and again, as does the Scientificamerican article you linked to. The few estimates I find for the number of submarine volcanoes seem vary from 1 million to around 3.5 million.

 

However, your linked Scientificamerican article does mention the following:

 

"British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica—but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above."

 

The issue I was addressing with reference to submarine volcanoes was in connection with ocean acidification and ocean warming, not the atmosphere. Did you genuinely miss that point?
 

Here's another point that shows just how daft your supposition is. For 14 milion years preceding 1850 or so,  the oceans" PH was constant. But you're contending that possibly there was a huge upsurge in undersea volcanic activity since then? It's thinking like this that makes people think playing the lottery is a great way to make money? Maybe you should take up your case with William of Occam.