OZBUSDRIVER,
"Proves". There's that word. Given evolution and relativity are still "theories" that pretty much nobody except the religious (and these days few of them) dispute, you'll have to make do with very "high levels of confidence" of hundreds of climate specialists. Those crazy scientists - cause themselves more problems that it is worth by not just telling little while lies and saying they're certain.
In fact (as an aside), that's a good way to tell somebody who is not to be taken seriously. The denialist "scientists" are all "certain", real scientists are "very confident". Certainty usually arrives with a paycheque from a big company.
Anyway, to your question. You've probably read and dismissed it, but try:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf
There are many, many others, but this is the best.
The "trace gas" argument is a bit of a furphy. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases like Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CFCs etc etc) are all trace, but they nevertheless keep the planet warm. Otherwise, we'd be like the moon. (Nitrogen and Oxygen aren't going to do it - not greenhouse gases). So that it is present in very small quantities doesn't really matter. It works. What matters is the increase in amount. It's closer to 390ppm at the moment, which is much higher than any time in the last 650,000 years (it got to 290ppm at one point). Then it works a little too well.
As the report says, "During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
forcings would likely have produced cooling." We should be seeing a drop in average global temps, but we aren't. Quite the opposite. Of course the sun provides the warming, but how much of that heat is trapped depends on the makeup of the atmosphere - otherwise, again, we'd be the moon. We change it, we change the planet. That too, is physics.
The weather phenomena you're referring to are relatively short term. This is not that. Nor is it localised (though there are local effects).
I'm no climate scientist or physicist. My degree is in chemistry. But I can read a report or article. I know scholarly and credible and I know biased and conflicted. I'm yet to read anything from the denialists that isn't easily debunked or full of straw men.
But somehow, I don't think I will have convinced you!
And to stay on topic, the effect on aviation will be very minor. Except that it will drive companies to look at cleaner fuels.