Chris Snowdon has an interesting graph showing how asthma deaths have been rising since the 2007 smoking ban:
It reminds me that, about 100 years ago, doctors used to prescribe smoking as a treatment for asthma. Can anyone even begin to imagine that happening now?
I used to have an asthmatic friend in Devon, around the time of the smoking ban. She told me that when she was young, and suffered from a lot of asthma attacks, she longed to be able to smoke. And when I knew her she was a regular smoker, and we used to meet up in pubs and play pool and talk and listen to music on the juke box. I never saw her have a single asthma attack.
After the smoking ban that bit of social life ended, of course, and I saw less and less of her. Her attitude to the smoking ban was fatalistic. She said that there was nothing that could be done about it. She thought it was pointless to write to our MP, like I had done.
She wasn’t very well off, and so she may well now be someone who has been forced to stop smoking given the draconian taxation of tobacco. And so this morning I’ve been wondering whether, in the absence of tobacco, she’s been getting asthma attacks again. In fact, I’m wondering if she might even be one of the casualties in the graph above. I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
I’ve been running my glaciation model some more. I now have 18 geological columns at 5º intervals from the Earth’s equator to its North Pole. I started with a 12,000 year long interglacial without any snow, and then I started dropping 25 m of snow every 275 years at every latitude.
During the interglacial, the Earth’s surface gradually cooled (blue), but when the snow started falling, and a thick layer of insulating snow built up, the surface rocks began to heat up (red). Unsurprisingly the snow got deepest (about 3 km) at the Pole on the left side, shallowest at the equator on the right.
After the surface rocks had heated up enough, they gradually melted the snow, first at the equator, and finally the pole. Although in this case the snow didn’t completely melt, and about 100 m of it still remained after 750,000 years.
This residual layer of snow kept the surface rocks warm. But if the snow had melted the surface rocks would have quickly got cold. (“Quickly”, as in “within 10,000 years”) .
Climate scientists don’t seem to build models like my simple dynamic heat flow model, in which I calculate the daily conductive heat flows up and down the 18 geological columns, and can do 750,000 years of simple calculations in a few hours on my £130 PC computer. My model can apply daily solar heat gains at the surface of the Earth at any latitude, and recently I’ve got it to do Milankovitch cycles as well. I can even simulate global atmospheric warming by changing the emissivity of the air in the atmosphere.
Climate scientists’ supercomputer models seem to only run for 100 years at most, so even if they’re doing the math the same way I am, they’d never see the surface rock warming that I do, because surface rocks take many thousands of years to warm up and cool down – and anyway their models seem to be almost exclusively atmospheric models. And that’s why they find ice ages so mysterious. Unable to see the subglacial surface rock warming, they can’t explain ice ages, so they’ve supposed that CO2-induced global warming (and cooling) must be far stronger than it actually is. And so now we have a global warming panic, and Greta Thunberg.
Finally, great pity that nobody paid any attention to Ann Coulter.