I certainly agree with the periodic nature. We have cooled for over a decade and yet the CO2 level has increased during that time. Thus their theory has some substance.

Just look at the historical record. The Earth has been hotter and the Earth has been colder. It goes through natural cycles. It didn't suddenly change when Al Gore appeared on the scene.

Bruce: Ha! Ha! "This ones different." Same old baloney. How is it different? This scientist does not see it that way.

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Notice the last sentence. Now what are your credentials and what are your examples? . . . . . I thought so. Just a bunch of bluster.

No. I agree it will be cooler but to what degree we can not tell right now. We have been in global cooling for over 100 yrs however there has been an unusual lag (but still going down) that hasn't shown in other warming cooling cycles. The fact that this trend is knew and we have no information on what is causing a prediction of any thing more then yes it will be cooler is not functional with what little information we have.

World wide 'cycles' tend to happen over geological time, not historical time. Hundreds of thousands of years up to millions of years for noticeable climatic changes to occur are the rule.

Evidence at this time points to a geological cooling trend if all of the known factors are considered.

The problem here is that there are dozens of cooling factors and sub-factors involved...some strong and some weak. The current situation where industry pours billions of tons of CO2 and methane into our paper thin atmosphere yearly has changed the equation. This historically rapid addition of potent greenhouse gases has trumped the geological change factors that would suggest a cooling trend or even a steady state. The fact that the geological 'cooling factors' are in play has acted as a brake on this on going warming trend... that's a good thing, but the cooling factors are not getting any stronger and the amount of CO2 rises yearly...15 additional parts per million every decade.

We're gone from 286ppm in less than 200 years to almost 400ppm today. Deniers say that has no effect and can have no effect... yet conditions, particularly in the northern hemisphere continue to show the effect of 'warming', but zero effects of 'cooling'. The data, the physics and the science are all on the side of warming....none of that is on the side of anything else.

"The medium is the message" is a famous saying of Marshall McLuhan.

I am sure that a corollary must be that the analysis technique determines the answer.

If you user Fourier analysis you will only find regular cycles (plus an offset). If, on the other hand, you fit a straight line you will always get a trend.

Recent warming, 60 years or so, seems to be a combination of both.

The "trendies" always start their analysis just after the climatic stock market crash. Their conclusion: "It's increasing, we're all going to die!" The "cyclists" say" "Nonsense, it just keeps going up and down."

Interesting article. The scientists will address it. Bu tit is not a consensus of Germans.

The de Vries cycle is an interesting construct, but actual solar output is lower now than 50 years ago.