[defrost]

> And the CO2-driving argument is predicated on null-warming in the 1800s

It's predicated on thermodynamics, heat equations, and the fact that CO2 is an insulator and that CO2 in the atmosphere has measurably increased as a direct result of fossil fuel extraction.

eg: Manabe, Wetherald 1967.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...

[romaaeterna]

Throughout the vast majority of geological history, CO2 has been a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, of global temperature. CO2 was 1600ppm back in the Eocene. High CO2 was caused by the high temperature, not the other way around. Thermodynamics and heat equations and so on all worked the same way in the Eocene as they do today, and nobody was extracting fossil fuels.

[defrost]

> Throughout the vast majority of geological history, CO2 has been a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator,

This directly contradicts another opinion upthread:

> The proxies we have for ancient periods don't allow us to state very much about what rates of warming looked like

although that was from the person that incorrectly, although confidently, claimed:

> the CO2-driving argument is predicated on null-warming in the 1800s

They do seem confused about multiple causes, effects, etc.

[romaaeterna]

You dropped "on a short-term scale" when quoting me.

The contradiction that you see escapes me. Please explain how the fact that our proxies don't allow us to talk about decade- or century-level temperature movements 50 million years ago contradicts the statement CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature change through most of the geologic record.

Also, you say I am confused about something. Perhaps. Say in precise language what you think that is, and I will try to clear things up.