Who would have thought it, eh? New research showing that air pollution is actually helping to protect us from climate change.

The warning comes after researchers investigated the effect of fine
particles known as aerosols on climate change. Aerosols – particles
smaller than one hundredth of a millimetre – are churned out from
factory chimneys, from the burning of fossil fuels and forest fires,
although sea salt and dust particles swept up by desert storms add to
levels detected in the atmosphere.

Because
the particles are so light, they remain aloft for long periods, where
they cool the Earth by reflecting radiation from the sun back out to
space. Higher levels of aerosols lead to the formation of brighter
clouds made up of smaller water droplets, which reflect still more of
the sun’s warming radiation. Cutting down on aerosols by improving air
quality means that the Earth will in future be less shielded against
the sun’s rays.

Now if I’m to be honest (aww, do I have to be?) this effect is well known. Well, well known amongst the sort of people interested in such things perhaps. Like William Connolly for example. What the new research shows is the size of the effect.

Writing in the journal Nature today, scientists at the
Meteorological Office and the US government’s National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration report that climate models used to predict
future global warming have badly underestimated the cooling effect of
aerosols.

"We found that aerosols actually have twice the cooling
effect we thought," said Nicolas Bellouin, a climate modeller at the
Met Office. The consequence is that as air quality improves and aerosol
levels drop, future warming may be greater than we currently think."

So, abandoning this new found objectivity already, what do we think should be the solution?

Obvious really, when you think about it. Pull those scrubbers off the coal plants for a start. Tripled profits all round!

We should in fact go a great deal further. One of the things that increases fuel consumption in cars is the plethora of feedbacks, scrubbers and so on that are designed to reduce aerosol and particularate emissions. So we need to get rid of them as well.

Effects? Sure, a few more children coughing but lower fuel consumption, and thus less CO2 emissions, plus more of those lovely aerosols that cool the planet! It would also reduce the US’s reliance upon foreign oil by reducing total consumption, something that some worry about. Would make Saudi and Iran poorer….full of rich lovely goodness this plan, eh?

There’s even a further piece of loveliness. What it is actually telling us is that we need to reduce CO2 emissions before we further reduce aerosol such. Which means we should be running cars on fuel cells. And the most efficient type of those is solid oxide fuel ones. And the best of those uses a scandia/yttria mix to stabilize the zirconia. Which means someone is going to have to go and build a new plant to extract all that lovely scandium oxide.

Now, who could that be? Who do we know who makes their living out of scandium? Who, whisper it gently, do we know with a plan for a scandium extraction plant in his back pocket?

Why, that would be Timmy!

It is in fact estimated (no, not by me, by serious people) that the world will need 2,000 tonnes of scandium oxide cumulatively up to 2025 to make such fuel cells a reality. Through the magic of actually having done some work I have the design and plan for a plant to extract exactly that amount and all that’s needed is the $10 million to go build it.

So, there we have it, your science lesson for the day. Real science, proper peer reviewed research, shows that the only way to save the planet is to send Tim Worstall $10 million.

It’s not for nothing that the scientific method is known as the second greatest invention of mankind.

The PayPal button is at top right.