Quote midtskogen (
)
You argue as what we measure as climate (a thin section of air above the ground) is a function of forcing solely. There also is internal, unforced variability, which can amplify, cancel or reverse the effects of forcing changes.
Internal variability does not dominate the Holocene climate record. As you have seen, the first order effects are the volcanic and solar forcings, and what humans do.
This is basic climate dynamics. Forcings, whether internal (like albedo, carbon cycling, aerosols) or external (like solar variations) tend to dominate the climate system because they directly affect the balance of energy into and out of the system. Internal variability matters too, but all that does is redistribute energy within the system.
For example, ENSO can change global temperature based on whether the Pacific ocean puts out warmer or cooler water. Warmer than usual puts extra heat in the atmosphere, cooler than usual takes heat out of the atmosphere. But even ENSO doesn't dominate over anthropogenic forcing, especially through the 21st century.
For internal variability to have a big effect on global climate, it needs a profound change in how the energy is redistributed, such as by changing the ocean circulation. This can happen, but you have to look back beyond the Holocene to see an example. This is the Younger Dryas -- caused by a huge influx of fresh water into the oceans, that had been dammed up behind the ice sheets.
Quote midtskogen (
)
No wonder, if the proxy has no details shortert than 200 years, like the xkcd graph.
You have been shown that the paleoclimate record displays variations on timescales of years to decades, that it records the effects caused by volcanoes and solar variations, and that those effects agree with our understanding of how those forcings actually changed. So you should already know that this argument -- that the climate reconstructions are artificially flat because of the methodology or limitations of what they record -- is wrong.
Graphics like the XKCD comic present it in a form which smooths out variations which are either small or brief to give the broader context. You may recall that I said I prefer the unsmoothed reconstructions, with the uncertainties, because this gives better impression of what we do understand about what the climate system does across a variety of timescales.
Would you like to try reviewing and revising your views of this field? You've presented a lot of arguments about why you think the hockey-stick reconstruction of paleoclimate is unphysical, and we've found that many of those were based on misconceptions. Which is fine; I know this is a difficult subject with a lot of information and misinformation out there. I'm happy to try to help you understand it better. 
ENG
New site
United States 
Norway 
For instance, when the modern warming shows up in the ice core record, we'll know more about how well the record picks up internal variability and we'll also get a firmer calibration. That could take centuries. Meanwhile, we'll learn more about the multidecadal variability. I hope I've been clear that I don't reject the hockey stick because the record can't be like that, but because we don't know that.