[Physicist]

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.

[beezdotcom]

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.

[El Gato]

The author that the difference is the level at which the disturbance occurred. Volcanoes and even nuclear tests don't occur at 10 Km altitude. Read it here