...I aint selling my stock in manufacturers of air conditioning anytime soon based on such limited evidence.

;-)

Using the level of radiocarbon in any tree stump or marine sediments to ascertain solar intensity has got to be the furthest of longshot scientific calculations or stretches.

The identified 11 year solar cycle also makes his "100 year" projection even more inexplicable. I would think it would be far easier to try and look at the past 10 solar cycles and try and calculate if we were in for a more intense or less intense upcoming 11 year cycle or two based on the temperature (and later flare and sunspot) solar data. But even this is simply far too little data to give anything more than a wild shot in the dark guess at future solar intensity.

I guess my skeptical side keeps believing that some scientists like to make far away or "long term" predictions so that they need not be present when they are proven fallacious and that they don't want to be able to be proven wrong quickly - as a sort of a scientific career preservation technique. Understandable, but not contributing much to the scientific arena. So instead of going out on a limb and saying the next decade will be less intense - its the next 100 years.

If one's wrong - so be it! It's not shameful, nor should it hurt one's career. Science is not about "safe" predictions and long term assessments or the churning out of papers employing the benefit of delayed falsification.

But you already know this. White Mars is nothing if not bold and falsifiable - and that is why it is more "useful science" to other scientists than speculative predictions on the intensity of the next century of solar emissions.

But that may just be my take on things,

;-)

SDAI-Tech1