New Nature Paper implies CO2 leads temperature

See it here.

Commenter Gary nails it:

"If CO2 leads temperatures, then what’s causing it to increase in the first place when the earth is very cold? Cold oceans tend to retain it. It’s not anthropogenic. Global respiration ought to be lower in glacial periods compared to inter-glacials. I can’t think of a source that would provide enough CO2 to force temperatures up, even if it truly was the driver."

Commenter mkelly adds to the puzzle:

"So their own graph shows that CO2 is nearly 400 ppm and the temperature now is less than the last interglacial and several past ones. How does that show CO2 is a driver of warmth?"

Commenter bmcburney makes a sinking point.

"So the first step in the process is that the Milankovitch cycle melts the ice but the melting of the ice is not a response to any increase in warmth because the change in the Milankovitch cycle itself does not increase warmth or produce climate change directly. The climate only warms once CO2 is released from the deep ocean which happens after the ice melts but before the climate warms in response to the CO2. The key insight of this paper is that the change in the Milankovitch cycle is a “climate neutral” event which melts the glaciers through an undisclosed process having nothing to do with climate."

Commenter Peter Miller gets on the case

The paper seems to show that first the warming starts and then the oceans release CO2. What is new about that? The paper shows the opposite of what they think it shows. Did they submit this to anyone for critical review?

There is not a whole lot of Shakun going on.