How could atomic explosions cause worldwide nuclear winter and also contribute to global warming?

Question

These two doomsday theories seem rather contradictory.

Answer 1

I haven't heard about it causing global warming.  You might want to check the credentials of whoever told you that-- if it's a third-grade science teacher or some political talk-show host, chances are, they're full of c**p.

Next, try to keep in mind that no one has ever observed the effects of several atomic explosions (and it would take a lot of very big ones to cause a nuclear winter).  So... since it hasn't happened yet, no one is really sure.  That's what makes it doubly scary.

Answer 2

Atomic detonations create blast , heat, and radiation.  The blast effect adds dust to the atmosphere.  Generally, anything close to an atomic detonation will be ignited by heat (IR radiation) and burn adding CO2 and a lot of soot to the atmosphere.  The radiation (radioactivity) is just a nasty bonus.  The dust and soot will initially block out the sun (nuclear winter), but will settle in a few years.  Meanwhile the extra CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for a few hundred years and contribute to warming.  Initially there wouldn't be many terrestrial plants to absorb it.  It is also unlikely that the few humans left would be adding much CO2 to the atmosphere after a nuclear winter.

Answer 3

Nuclear winter was even admitted by Carl Sagan, the founder of the idea, that is was wrong.  Burning trees raises CO2?  If someone is aiming thermonuclear warheads at me, the last thing on my mind will be global warming.

Answer 4

I've never heard of atomic explosions contributing to global warming.  Global warming is said to be caused by greenhouse gas emissions from industry and agriculture.

Atomic bombs may cause particles to block out much of the radiation from the sun, and prevent heating rays from reaching the surface much as they did when Krakatoa erupted.  

There is no contradiction; nuclear winter and global warming are just unrelated.

Answer 5

The great destruction  predicted by Nostradamus is followed by a cold snap. A nuclear war is likely to increase the particulates in the atmosphere.This will block the sun.,

Answer 6

If humans are causing global warming global a nuclear war is about the only way to stop it.  Civilization as we know it puts out lots of greenhouse gasses and a nuclear war is one of the few ways to disrupt or end civilisation.  Unfortunately nuclear winter and radiation contamination are very bad in the short term.

Answer 7

I really don't think either one is important, at least not in relation to Global Warming.  AGW is mainly about Greenhouse Gases, and nukes don't put them out in a significant way.

In the 1980's Carl Sagan and others showed that if (such as by nuclear war)  ALL of the earths trees and buildings were burned, a certain amount of soot and ash would  be let off into the air, and that this would be sufficient to effectively block most of the sun's radiation.  This would result in a temperature drop to cause what he called a "nuclear winter", meaning darkness and cold.  This would persist for a number of years and it's unlikely that many people would survive.  As far as I know this work has never been disproven or repudiated.

The current role of soot has been discussed in similar fashion, suggesting the soot produced by our pollution could serve as a "damping" factor, blocking the entrance of sunlight and possibly compensating for Global Warming.  This doesn't work mathematically   as it is impossible to get a stable climate that way  and the climates that do result are all not very compatible with human life (too hot or too cold)