Unlikely. At least a single volcanic eruption is not enough to change the long-term climate trend, you need a clusters of eruptions to persist through centuries for that. HTHH will likely decrease the global mean surface temperatures by 0.004°C in the first year.
Compared to that human activity is a thousand times more significant, everything else is statistical noise next to it, which at least means that it is easy to spot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa
“ The eruption caused a volcanic winter.[17] In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by 0.4 °C (0.72 °F).[18] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 970 millimetres (38.18 in) and San Diego 660 millimetres (25.97 in)[19] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[20] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[21] but many scientists doubt that there was a causal relationship.[22]
The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) reflected more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cooled the entire planet until the sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[23] “.
Yes, I’m aware of “but many scientists doubt that there was a causal relationship” regarding the rain but the climate has been affected by a single eruption.
There's good evidence this has happened multiple times in history by a single eruption.
It is not impossible that HTHH affected the monsoon, but there is a thousand pound elephant in the room that will make it's effect hard to quantify.
There is a natural carbon cycle, which is quite balanced in that there is barely any radiative forcing, which is the difference between how much energy enters the atmosphere and how much of it leaves. Human activity amounts to all, I repeat all of the radiative forcing in the last century, and more actually, because naturally there would have been negative forcing.
I agree humans are responsible for increasing CO2, but not because of emissions. The earth should act as a buffered system, with utility of atmospheric carbon rising with carbon levels.
There’s another paper in nature describing how the mass slaughter of baleen whales broke the iron cycle at the poles. Mass whale poop fed the krill who are critical to fixing iron…the high iron krill poop is what feeds the plankton blooms. Polar plankton was critical to sinking excess atmospheric carbon.
Unfortunately as it turns out this system can't cope with the extra emissions. Most of it is still absorbed, but a lot of it lingers in the atmosphere, causing trouble. Even the oceans have trouble absorbing the extra emissions. They now threaten the biological pump itself.
This is why people are so depressed when it comes to climate change, because never mind the greenhouse effect, which is in itself substantial, but once you screw with things like the biological pump there is no telling what will happen. This is a big, fine-tuned system, not unlike a spaceship. It is very risky to poke it. Granted it is likely that the system will snap back into working conditions in a few million years, but that's not exactly reassuring for us.
https://www.academia.edu/314989/Southern_Ocean_iron_fertiliz...