Red herring. The same measurements are replicated elsewhere, continuously
“Also the rise from 1930 must be explained.?
WHY?
The proponent of a hypothesis must prove it.
The hypothesis that human industrial activity producing CO2 affects the temperature of the planet must be proven.
You deny science when you say that others must disprove the hypothesis.
That’s not science.
Science requires that you prove the hypothesis.
“Can’t simply say because prior knowledge is imperfect the current rise could be natural.”
Yes, we can say that.
But what you are missing is that there is no relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth.
It does not matter if the observed change in atmospheric CO2 — which is probably measurement error due to local conditions like on the Hawaiian volcano — is natural or not.
Who cares if CO2 content in the air is natural or man-made?
CO2 does not change the planet’s temperature.
“It requires a explanation.”
Your hypothesis requires an explanation as well as proof. You are turning science on its head. The hypothesis must be proven true.
“There’s a well-supported manmade explanation, and no natural explanation that I have read about.”
There is no explanation. It has never been tested by science.
Plants eat CO2. The extremely tiny amount of CO2 transformed by humans from where nature stored it into the free air would stimulate plant growth, and CO2 would immediately return to equilibrium.
Human industrial activity cannot explain CO2 in the atmosphere because plants are eagerly and busily consuming that same CO2 as fast as they can.
Red herring. The same measurements are replicated elsewhere, continuously
because plants are eagerly and busily consuming that same CO2 as fast as they can.
And that is correct! See graph in my previous comment. They eat the most CO2 in the short but very sunny Arctic summer. Note the sharp drop in CO2 in Barrow. They eat the least in the southern hemisphere which has much more ocean than land, and the least at the south pole which is completely covered in ice unlike Barrow where all the ice melts.
So your hypthothesis explains the annual wiggle in the chart, and my hypothesis explains the year-to-year rise. I can give evidence of correctness from math, economic value of burned fossil times amount of CO2 per dollar.
You are welcome to propose a hypothesis for the year-to-year rise in CO2. I have proposed many, not just fossil. I have proposed volcanic activity, ocean biosphere changes and terrestrial biosphere (e.g. burning the rainforests) There is some evidence for each but no evidence to explain the entire, steady year-to-year rise.