Tunguska event attributed to global warming

[Mk]

When analyzing the mean-year trend of the Earth's surface temperature for the past 140 years one can discern two sections of monotone linear increase of temperature during two last industrial centuries. The first one begins somewhere in the period 1906-1909. The previous segment demonstrates a weak decrease in the temperature trend, not increase. For explanation of this sudden break we look for a phenomenon of cosmic scale during this time which could have given rise to beginning of global warming with a significant probability. On the 30th June 1908 Tungus meteorite exploded with the power of ~15 Mt TNT at an altitude of ~10 km. Such an explosion could cause considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure in mesosphere. The difference between this mesosphere catastrophe and atmospheric nuclear tests that cause another break in the temperature plot is discussed. The purpose of this report is to open the debate and to encourage discussion among scientists.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510042

He says a rise in temperature, which began between 1906 and 1909, is not caused by rising CO₂, but is attributable to the Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_Event

 

[Astronuc]

Funny, this came to my attention a few days ago.

Some additional commentary - http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

And this particular matter has been mentioned on JunkScience.com, but I have to wonder about the reliability of the site.

I also have to wonder about the validity of Shaidurov's theory. How has it been tested?

What about the cooling that took place after the Krakatoa eruption in 1883? Ostensibly, the effect only lasted about 5 years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Long-term_effects ? Would the Tunguska event be more significant? If so, why?

 

[Ophiolite]

One should also note that Tunguska size events are thought to be relatively commonplace i.e. of the order of once per century. Also a similar event is now thought to have occurred in South America in the 1930s. That does not seem to have generated a comparable signature.
It is certainly an interesting thought, but I should like to see something additional to substantiate it, such as some good atmospheric modelling mimicing the change.