Blame Tunguska for Triggering Global Climate Change?

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil.

Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

More...

This is an interesting theory....



[edit on 15-3-2006 by loam]

Besides disturbing the atmosphere, has the Tungusa event produced any other noticable changes like pressure on the surface, or pushing us at a slightly different tilt? I know it was not covered in the article.

The theory is very interesting.

I still think that global warming has a lot to do with our polluting the environment as well, IMO. If this stirring up of the atmosphere also changed the altitude of pollution it could have acted as a double whammy.

Any disturbances from recent volcanic eruptions (if there were any) would also have been thrown into the mix. This could significantly change the atmosphere balance.

Nice find.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Sparkie the Wondersnail]

Sweet! So does this mean I can continue wasting fossil fuels with inefficient combustion-ignition (gasoline) engines? Perhaps the farmers in my country and neigbouring Indonesia can continue their open burning at the end of the season. Oh, how liberating!

Which oil company funded this? I'm not saying it's bull, just that I seriously doubt it's the only reason I have to use 4 computer fans, a brand new water-cooling system plus leaving my computer casing open and downclocking my cpu multiplier.

When I was younger, temperatures here used to be a comfortable 27° C. We kids used to go out and play football or whatever every evening, even if there were video games at home. Now it's just too hot to do that. I see very few kids out playing. When I ask them why they aren't out, but at home on the 'net instead, they'll tell me "Matahari terik sangat!" (the Sun is too intense!)

Bah! No matter what the reason there's nothing we can do about it now. I'm thinking of going into the ice-cream business. If I'm gonna suffer from the heat, I might as well profit from it.

Originally posted by Sparkie the Wondersnail
Besides disturbing the atmosphere, has the Tungusa event produced any other noticable changes like pressure on the surface, or pushing us at a slightly different tilt?

Tunguska caused some strange effects. Attempts to apply carbon-14 dating to the soil have produced dates "in the future" the soil was somehow enriched in radioactive carbon-14.

One of the still unexplained phenomena of Tunguska that have never been convincingly explained.

How does this theory explain the fact that global temps fell during the middle part of the 20th century? How does it explain the subsequent rise from the 1980s onwards - which has resulted in the warmest years on record occuring in the 1990s and 2000s?

If the Tunguska Event were in 1978 instead of 1908 then it might be worthy of further investigation.

But as it stands, it simply doesn't match with observations.

This is indeed VERY interesting. It doesn't explain the drop in temperatures during the middle part of the 20th century, but neither does the theory that CO2 emissions cause global warming.

Earth's magnetic field has been weakening for decades now, perhaps that weaker field is the cause of the atmospheric changes.

Yes... very interesting... totally unbelievable.

I will point you here.

The problem of global warming was flagged up almost a century before Tunguska.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Tunguska caused some strange effects. Attempts to apply carbon-14 dating to the soil have produced dates "in the future" the soil was somehow enriched in radioactive carbon-14.

One of the still unexplained phenomena of Tunguska that have never been convincingly explained.

Seems to me that the Tunguska event is likely a factor - and that many diverse factors influence the complex system underlying climate. Oscillations also are entirely predictable as the system will constantly respond to events and pressures, and try to balance the various effects to stabilize the system.

Shadow - can you tell us more about this radioactive carbon-14? Any links? Analyses or speculations?

Are you suggesting the Tunguska event was not caused by a meteorite, but rather an unacknowledged American attack on Russia or something like that?

Originally posted by byhiniur
Yes... very interesting... totally unbelievable.

The problem of global warming was flagged up almost a century before Tunguska.

You are quite right about that.
But the thing is, we have been recording global temperatures since the end of the "small ice age" (the coldest period of the past 10,000 yrs), so it's quite logical you see a rising trend in global temperatures.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
You are quite right about that.
But the thing is, we have been recording global temperatures since the end of the "small ice age" (the coldest period of the past 10,000 yrs), so it's quite logical you see a rising trend in global temperatures.

The point is that temperatures have really started to rise in the last ten years. The issue was raised before Tunguska so I highly doubt we can attribute global warming to it.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
...trend...

I wouldn't call a "race" a "trend".

Originally posted by soficrow


Shadow - can you tell us more about this radioactive carbon-14? Any links? Analyses or speculations?

Are you suggesting the Tunguska event was not caused by a meteorite, but rather an unacknowledged American attack on Russia or something like that?

Here are some links that mention the Carbon-14 anomalies. Some like Russian geologist Vladimir Epifanov and German astrophysicist Wolfgang Kundt have suggested that the explosion was an explosion of methane gas which was emitted from the earth rather then a asteroid or Comet impact.

Some have even suggested things like UFO crashes or tests of a Nikola Tesla like weapon. I dont know if I buy any of that just there was some strange effects to a likely airburst of this asteroid or comet.

www.reference.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.answers.com...
adsabs.harvard.edu... /nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999M%26PS...34..891R&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

Some of the weirder theories I've heard on the Tunguska event involve anti-matter comets or micro-singularities. Hot damn! Those are really sci-fi-ish! Can't give you a link though, coz I read it from books.

This as they put it is nothing more then a "The controversial theory"


Completly ridiculous In my humble opinion.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Some of the weirder theories I've heard on the Tunguska event involve anti-matter comets

Anti-matter comets thats pretty wierd. It wouldn't take much anti-matter to make the estimated 15MT tunguska blast.

Only about .78 of a single pound of anti-matter thats a tiny comet

www.edwardmuller.com...

I dont even want to imagine the blast a chunk of anti-matter miles across like alot of comets would create. If there really is chunks of anti-matter out in the universe I hope they aint anywhere near the milky way galaxy.