Yes, that's possible. But volcanoes could have done that in the past too. There's no sign that volcanoes caused spikes to 400 in the ice cores shown in the web page I linked above. There's no evidence that happened in the last 20k years from the ice core data which is pretty decent data (annual resolution).
Another possibility I mentioned was large scale reductions in plant life especially in the ocean where there is a lot of algae taking up CO2. If algae is reduced then CO2 will rise. It would need to be a large reduction to cause a large rise in CO2. Again, no evidence in the ice core data from the last 20k years.
But even if the rise is solely due to man- it’s still so insignificant an amount compared to the 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere, that it can’t possibly be responsible for causing climate change-
First, do not call it "climate change". That is bogus term to attribute weather changes to global warming. Usually the opposite occurs. There are weather changes and those cause global warming or cooling.
In the other direction the increase in solar activity caused warming from the Little Ice Age though the 20th century and that caused some weather changes. But there is no such thing as "climate change" just natural weather changes.
What happens is with increased CO2 is that the more numerous molecules heat the rest of the atmosphere. There are two pertinent timings in molecular interaction. First the CO2 that is hit with IR of the right frequency is warmed and it transfers that heat to surround O2 and N2 very quickly. Second the surrounding O2 and N2 heat some other (or the same) molecule of CO2 and it radiates that heat by emitting a photon. The first is much fast than the second. That's why the atmosphere warms from CO2 or warms more from more CO2. That is manmade global warming. It is very slow and beneficial.
[[there is 280ppm plus or minus of CO2 up to the present. But the CO2 rose past 400 recently. That means there would need to be 12C of warming in the last 800 years to cause the 120 ppm rise.]]
Zowie- Soooo if rising temps are the only cause of rising CO2 then what kind of temperature rise would be needed for an increase to 8000? Lol- let’s figure it out- we’ll round it up for simplicity sake- 300 ppm to 400 ppm = 12 degree rise needed- so for every 100 ppm you ‘need’ 12 degree rise in temp according to your contention- so going from 300 to 8000 ppm the world would have had to have approximately a 9600 degree Celsius rise in temperature- Phew!
Obviously the world wasn’t 9600 degrees above current ‘normal temperatures’ of the past couple 1000 years- So to contend that man’s release of CO2 into atmosphere is the only way that ppm could rise 100 ppm because there would ‘need to be a 12 c rise in temps’ can’t possibly be a hard fast rule-
[[There was not 12C of warming in the last 800 years, case closed. ]]
To those married to an agenda I suppose it’s ‘settled science’ which is ‘not open for discussion’
The 1-1.4 rise in temps is perfectly within natural variability of +/- 5f range of past 3000 years
In 2010 the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published their findings which showed that glaciation, not warming, occurred when levels of CO2 were 5 times higher than today- woopsie-
The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system ... . Since cosmic rays dominate the tropospheric ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically ... , also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their “whiteness” is more important than their “blanket” effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. [Emphasis added.]
Again- to state that man’s CO2 is the primary cause of climate change (unsusual accordign to agendists)- becasue ‘there woudl have to be a 12c rise in temperature IF it were natural, ignores many many other variables which most likely are them ost propable explanations for current rises-
Correlation does not equal causation, as you must well know- but it seems to be your argument that because temps rise and anthropomorphic CO2 rises too- that anthropomorphic CO2 must be the cause-
[[What happens is with increased CO2 is that the more numerous molecules heat the rest of the atmosphere. There are two pertinent timings in molecular interaction. First the CO2 that is hit with IR of the right frequency is warmed and it transfers that heat to surround O2 and N2 very quickly. Second the surrounding O2 and N2 heat some other (or the same) molecule of CO2 and it radiates that heat by emitting a photon. ]]
I know how it works- I’ve asked several times in the past for specifics- only approx 1% of heat escaping earth’s surface is the ‘right wavelength’ to be absorbed by CO2- all other heat is unaffected by CO2- of that 1% that gets cauterized, and released- what is the weight of this compared to the atmosphere weight? The answer is that it is so small as to be insignificant- it’s a % game-
CO2 only absorbs approx 8% of the heat leavign earth- and only 1% of the heat that leaves the earth is IR- (Nasa claims 40+% but there is no consensus- most apparently claim 1%)
The rest of the 99% being conduction, convection and evaporation
Bottom line? Very Very little heat is even captured by CO2- and even less is actually back radiated ‘in the right direction’ to make it’s way back to earth to ‘warm the globe’
Only 8% of the heat is captured- there is no way 8% of escaping heat can be captured, released in large enough quantities to cause global warming- take a 100 degree room- capture just 8% of it’s ‘escaping heat’, take just a tiny fraction of that amount, and transfer that into a 90 degree room of the same size- I guarantee that the 90 degree room isn’t going to ‘heat up to catastrophic levels’ What do you suppose the 90 degree room will rise to? (Remember, the 90 degree room also loses heat- it’s in a constant battle to maintain 90 degrees, so at times it will be even cooler- the addition of a fraction of captured 8% heat from hotter room, will have a very hard time moving the needle in any direction simply because there isn’t enough for one, and two, it reaches equilibrium very quickly due to being overwhelmed by the sheer mass of the room it’s injected into and the fluctuating temps in there-)