“Actual science” as opposed to what? Is there some issue with anything I said that makes it different from “actual science”?
The fact is that radiative forcing from changes in total solar irradiance during the entire post-industrial era is estimated at around 0.05 W/m2 and this is not likely to change in any significant way. This compares with total RF from anthropogenic sources which was 2.29 W/m2 in 2011, almost double what it was in 1980. Of that, 1.68 W/m**2 was due to CO2 alone. You won’t find any legitimate solar scientist who claims that variations in TSI are anything but the most minor factor in global climate on decadal or centenary timescales. In charts of climate forcings and feedbacks, solar variations are barely a blip and are completely overwhelmed by GHG forcings which dominate the climate.
I’ve never heard of Zharkova although I closely follow climate science, which is not surprising as she appears to be a math prof with a sideline in some type of solar research and in no way a climate scientist. Regardless of what you think of The Independent, this is appallingly bad reporting – and possibly bad science, too, I don’t know, but certainly bad reporting. The article cites “solar scientists” but names only Zharkova; it cites a coming mini ice age while I very much doubt that the research makes any such ridiculously outrageous conclusions.
Moreover it seems clear that Zharkova’s work, if it has any validity at all, is talking about significant reductions in solar activity – flares and sunspots and such, not solar output. This may be associated with the usual nominal variations in solar output, and in an extreme case may even be associated with a Maunder Minimum, which I infer is what she is implying. A Maunder Minimum may result in some reduction in solar UV output which may have regional climate effects due to changes in jet streams and other circulation systems, but it’s not going to have any significant overall global effect because the increase in the earth’s total energy budget is dominated by GHG forcings.
So anyway, regardless of whether there’s any valid science here at all, this is very, very bad and misleading reporting, and it’s no wonder that the comments section of the article seems to be attracting the usual gang of raving climate change denialists. If the Independent regards itself as a reputable newspaper, they should be ashamed of themselves.