Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Alan Robock is a distinguished professor of climate science from Rutgers University’s Department of Environmental Sciences. He is also the co-author of the study in Nature Food. He claimed that World of Engineering’s estimate of two degrees Fahrenheit for two to three years was “wrong”. The effects on the climate would depend completely on the amount of smoke injected into the atmosphere. He added that the duration of the possible impact does not rely on the volume of smoke to address the question of how long they would last. For each scenario addressed, the maximum effects would last for five years.
     Robock said that the effects of increased ultraviolet (UV) light on crop varieties, people, and ecosystems are one aspect of atmospheric soot. The heating would destroy the ozone in the stratosphere. This would allow more UV radiation to reach the surface. However, the impacts would be felt instantly for even the tiniest amount of smoke. Before its effects could be felt at the surface of the Earth, the excess UV would be absorbed by the large amount of stratospheric smoke that has been accumulating for years.
      According to Robock, a nuclear war would result in lower temperatures because the soot would indeed rise high enough in the atmosphere to prevent rain from washing the soot out. The soot would then absorb sunlight which would result in turning the Earth’s surface dark and chilly. The idea that a small nuclear war would stop global warming is simply not true.
      Irrespective of whether the theory is accurate or not, it is worth noting that the World of Engineering Twitter thread warned of serious consequences of such an event. They could instead have chosen to suggest that the projected sharp decline in global temperatures would be highly beneficial to humanity.
      Even a small nuclear war would worsen the situation by sparking a brand-new climate crisis when considered in the larger context of climate change. As an example, significant crop disparities in major exporters like the U.S. and Russia would result in export restrictions. This would have an impact on the food supply for nations that rely heavily on imports.
      According to the study in Nature Food, a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could result in more than five billion deaths around the world. A war between Pakistan an India could result in more than two billion deaths worldwide. Other studies have also highlighted potential indirect effects of this kind of conflict. These could include significant oceanic damage, which would be likely to have further negative and less predictable effects on the environment.
     Although a small nuclear war might indeed have a temporary global cooling effect, it is not correct to state that this would end the climate crisis. This is in part due to the fact that while cooling effects would only last a short time, a nuclear winter would itself cause a climate crisis leading to a global food crisis and perhaps billions of fatalities.