Just a general comment. There is a lot of "fringe physics" in this thread, by which I mean speculative theories that are taken seriously enough to appear in real journals, but not seriously enough to stimulate a lot of attention in mainstream climatology. In my view, that lack of attention stems from a fundamental logical disconnect in the argument: much of the physical explanations (which are always hard to come by when complex systems are involved) presented in this thread attempt to take a tiny variation in some forcing parameter, say solar activity, and cook up some way that it could have a large impact on Earth's climate. This is done to try and assert why something as insignificant as the solar magnetic cycle could have enough of an impact on Earth to explain climate periodicities. I find three red flags in the above arguments, though none make them necessarily (just probably) wrong:

1) If the Earth's climate is so sensitive to insignificant solar drivers, why is it not also oversensitive to any number of other potential drivers, like human CO2 emissions? In other words, if the driving impetus behind many of these climate-change apologetics is that "it's all the Sun, even though the Sun isn't really doing anything dramatic, so we don't need to worry about human influences", then it is rather illogical to argue on the basis of climate super-sensitivity that human intervention is not important. Super-sensitivity in general would tend to make rising CO2 levels a worse problem-- so what is so special about the solar magnetic cycle that the climate is supersensitive to that driver, but insensitive to all the other potential drivers they ignore? That is the big flaw in all this.

2) It gives me the general sensation of mistaking correlation for causation. This is nothing new-- we see it all the time, whenever analysts feel they need to boil down to pleasantries the stock market, the voting results, or any number of vastly complex systems that we would like to believe we understand but we really don't. This doesn't mean past periodicities will not repeat in the future, nor does it mean they will-- it only means the efforts to explain stochastic or quasi-periodic variations are generally pretty dubious. It is much easier to try and explain a consistent and continuous change in the presence of a consistent and continuous driver, as the argument only gets clearer and clearer with time.

3) Dubious explanations, when they emanate from questionable sources, are even less reliable. The questionable nature of the so-called "SSRC" was explored on another thread, so here I'll just note that the spaceandscience.net citation above, which claims that the SSRC has an "innovative theory" that makes an "important prediction", is from the website of the SSRC! Surprise, surprise, those are self-characterizations, they couldn't even find someone else to say that. That's like a movie review being written by the movie's own director ("the innovative directorial style had me riveted to my seat..." etc. etc.). It is also interesting to note that the website includes a photo of a shiny glass building that is claimed to be a photo of the "SSRC location", but in fact the "SSRC location" is just one suite in that building-- a building with two corporate labels that (coincidentally) cannot be read in the photograph. Hard to take any argument seriously under these kinds of conditions.