Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone [meteorite, not human emissions]
PhysOrg.com ^ | 13 March 2006 | Staff

Posted on 03/13/2006 8:12:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry

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.

Global warming is thought to be caused by the "greenhouse effect". Energy from the sun reaches the earth's surface and warms it, without the greenhouse effect most of this energy is then lost as the heat radiates back into space. However, the presence of so-called greenhouse gases at high altitude absorb much of this energy and then radiate a proportion back towards the earth's surface. Causing temperatures to rise.

Many natural gases and some of those released by conventional power stations, vehicle and aircraft exhausts act as greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, natural gas, or methane, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are all potent greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and methane are found naturally in the atmosphere, but it is the gradual rise in levels of these gases since the industrial revolution, and in particular the beginning of the twentieth century, that scientists have blamed for the gradual rise in recorded global temperature. Attempts to reverse global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have centred on controlling and even reducing CO2 emissions.

However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.

Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."

As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.

Source: University of Leicester


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; globalwarming; greenhouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: PatrickHenry
The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs.

Um, didn't we intentionally denotate at least that much in the 1950s?

Between China, The USSR, and the US, I would think that we easily blew up 100 MT of stuff in a 20 year period.

21 posted on 03/13/2006 8:39:02 AM PST by ko_kyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Doesn't matter.

It is still Bush's fault.

22 posted on 03/13/2006 8:39:17 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Real Leaders Base Their Decisions on Their Convictions. Wannabes Base Decisions on the Latest Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Not to throw cold water on this but I fail to see how an event in 08 effected temperatures in 06. Other than that, I like it.


23 posted on 03/13/2006 8:41:31 AM PST by FOG724 (Arnold is not a Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Environmentalism has nothing to do with science. It is all about politics.


24 posted on 03/13/2006 8:42:09 AM PST by moasicwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
No it won't, because global warming is a faith issue with them. Essentially secular religion. You can not argue faith. Presented with the evidence they will just chop off your head for being an infidel. rhetorically speaking.
25 posted on 03/13/2006 8:43:52 AM PST by Walkingfeather (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poincare

And apparently at the CO2 levels on Venus it does become the dominant factor.

BTW, isn't it ironic that greenhouses don't use the greenhouse effect to stay warm?


26 posted on 03/13/2006 8:46:26 AM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

So, if we nuke iran, we will also solve the global warming problem. Cool.


27 posted on 03/13/2006 8:48:44 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K4Harty

I moved to Houston in 1987 and did not open my car windows for about 3 years until I drove one day to Austin. I've been a few times to Dallas and further North but the humidity is still quite high and you will be in the Tornado Alley. IMO, nothing beats the Texas Hill Country, it's 5-10 degrees cooler than the cities and it is plain awsome. We've been living here for 13 years and still enjoy every minute of it.


28 posted on 03/13/2006 8:49:50 AM PST by 05 Mustang GT Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
BTW, isn't it ironic that greenhouses don't use the greenhouse effect to stay warm?

Some experimentation was done with CO_2 rich greenhouses. It seems that the plants grow faster but don't form as much protein.

29 posted on 03/13/2006 9:02:51 AM PST by Poincare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FOG724
The Church Of The Great And Terrible Greenhouse insists that global warming began to take a noticeable upswing during the 1906-1909 period. Since the Prophets of the COTGATG weren't watching their thermometers at the time, they can only guess at a range of years. Tunguska, however, falls within that range.
30 posted on 03/13/2006 9:04:16 AM PST by Redcloak (<--- Not always a people person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Sounds immediately wrong to me. Particulates from volcanoes demonstrably decrease global temperatures. Moreover, they settle out of the atmosphere within a very few years and the effect goes away. Ninety-eight years afterwards, the Tunguska event is still causing temperatures to rise? Not bloody likely.
31 posted on 03/13/2006 9:10:28 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It makes lots of sense. After Krakatoa blew, weather patterns were disrupted for quite some time, so there's precedent for it. I'd love to see what the environmentalists do with this one, besides ignore it.

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

The eruption produced erratic weather and spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months afterwards, as a result of sunlight reflected from suspended dust particles ejected by the volcano high into Earth's atmosphere. This worldwide volcanic dust veil acted as a solar radiation filter, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius on average. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.

32 posted on 03/13/2006 9:16:32 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; PatrickHenry
Ninety-eight years afterwards, the Tunguska event is still causing temperatures to rise?

I think the point of the article was that a)The initial rise could be attributable to other-than-human causes, implying that subsequent rises might be also and b)The main 'fallout' from Tunguska would have been water-vapor related, and not strictly particulates (especially if it was a cometary body).

I agree it's not a slam dunk in and of itself - but it's a prospect that gets rare consideration because it flies in the face of a more PC agenda. Most of the time, the argument is framed as "People cause global warming" vs. "There is no global warming". It's nice to occasionally explore the middle ground points, like "Hey, there's global warming but it's not our fault" or "Hey, our global warming is offsetting a cooling trend", etc.
33 posted on 03/13/2006 9:17:02 AM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

interesting


34 posted on 03/13/2006 9:20:35 AM PST by King Prout (DOWN with the class-enemies at Google! LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE'S CUBE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

"-- Al Gore must be spinning in his grave. --"

No, the wooden one is more likely spinning on his lathe....


35 posted on 03/13/2006 9:36:43 AM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

Ping.


36 posted on 03/13/2006 9:41:49 AM PST by RightWingAtheist (Creationism Is Not Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov

Hard to blame water vapor on Republicans, though I'm sure they'll try.

37 posted on 03/13/2006 9:44:35 AM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

1945-1976: Above ground nuclear testing

1800's: Significant volcanic eruptions/explosions

Both would place particulates high in the atmosphere, which would cause a reduction in sunlight reaching the surface.

Just my $0.02


38 posted on 03/13/2006 10:06:49 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks

Stop. We don't need any more immigrants to the HC!


39 posted on 03/13/2006 10:13:52 AM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

"1945-1976: Above ground nuclear testing "

I really wonder about that... the temperature was moving up the whole century til it stopped for 30 years.


40 posted on 03/13/2006 10:29:21 AM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson