No, natural variability can not explain the warming.
We can precisely measure the amount of energy entering and exiting Earth’s atmosphere, this has varied by less than a thousandth from the mean and could only ever cause warming or cooling on very long time scales, several hundreds of years. We can eliminate all factors beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
If there is a natural explanation to be found then it has to be here on Earth, and there isn’t one. We have identified the major natural variations, and although we often don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind them, we have enough observational data to identify their effects.
During the periods of observed warming there were no natural cycles or variations that came anywhere close to explaining the amount of warming. In fact, some of the most pronounced warming occurred when the natural variations were causing cooling.
For many sceptics the idea that warming was caused by natural variations was perhaps the easiest of all cop-outs, it was an excuse they used for years although not once did they actually suggest what variation or cycle could be causing the warming. And bear in mind, that this magical cycle would have needed to be greater than the sum total of all other cycles combined, so it’s not something that could easily be overlooked.
The current pause in warming does actually tie in perfectly with the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So precise is the correlation that even amongst the noise of other variations you can look at a temperature graph and identify to the month when the PDO switched to negative, namely September 1998.
Not only that, but the PDO Index since then has dropped to it’s lowest known level meaning a very strong cooling influence. If there was no global warming then temps in the last 17 years wouldn’t have been static, there would have been a very marked cooling.
Despite the precise correlation, from a scientific perspective this isn’t proof of anything (‘proof’ in science requires a 5 sigma confidence level or a 99.99994% probability, many magnitudes greater than that which a sceptic considers to be proof).
For now, the correct approach is to say that factors such as the PDO, greater heat transference to the oceans, reduced sunspot number and the emissions of dimming components are the likely causes of the pause in warming. It’s probable that the PDO alone is responsible for the sizeable majority of the cooling influence.
Concerning oceanic observations, we actually have just over 20,000 ocean sensors relaying a vast amount of data. The ARGO network has thousands of deep water sensors that take a profile of the oceans from sea-surface to a depth of 2,000 metres before regularly surfacing and transmitting their data via satellite. The network covers the oceans on a global scale and has provided billions of datapoints from which we can accurately determine the amount of heat present in the upper 2,000 metres of the oceans.
It’s more bad news for the sceptics I’m afraid. Right at the time when the atmospheric warming stopped, oceanic warming increased significantly. Since 1998 the oceans have absorbed about 160 zettajoules of energy, that’s the same amount that would have been in the atmosphere had the warming trend prior to 1998 continued. To put it into context, in the 15 years prior to 1998 the oceans absorbed about 45 zettajoules. Further, the rate at which heat is entering the oceans is increasing and in the last couple of years it’s been about 25 zettajoules per year.
Again, despite the fact that this might appear to be absolute proof of where the ‘missing heat’ has gone, it’s still not enough for science to declare a definitive conclusion.
Given your scepticism, I would be interested to hear which cycle(s) or natural variation you think caused or contributed to the warming episodes that have brought temperatures to where they are today.
- - - - - - - -
EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS
You don’t like the FACT that we can measure the flow of energy into and out of Earth’s atmosphere so you dismiss it by claiming it’s “Bull ****. It's an estimate with a lot of uncertainty.”
Do you have anything to back up your claim. No you don’t. If you don’t think we can calculate such things then you’re only kidding yourself. Such statements only serve to demonstrate just how little you know about climates.
Total solar irradiation can be calculated to an accuracy of 99.971%, or ±0.4W/m² from the mean TSI of 1363W/m².
Perhaps you’d care to explain how the maximum uncertainty of 0.4W/m² could account for observed warming/cooling. It’s actually very easy, if you know the first thing about climates you’ll do it in a matter of seconds. I won’t hold my breath.