I dont know if wacki just hasnt had any time to respond to the CO2 lag, but I've been reading some
www.logicalscience.com and I found it on their site which led me to the link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 which had this to say:
[ QUOTE ]
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically there is some probably unknown cause that starts the warming and CO2 increases it. This explanation leaves me very unsatisfied to say the least. How do we know that this unknown cause isnt whats causing both temperature and CO2 to increase? Wouldnt the CO2 compund with this cause and increase temperatures exponentially? What mechanisms stop runaway greenhouse effect? Isnt it safe to assume that this will stop our current increase in temperature too? Isnt it just a simpler explanation that the temperature increase causes CO2 increase? There is nothing in their rebuttal that refutes the temperature theory. It really seems like they are invoking an unknown cause because the data isnt fitting with their theory.
But it gets better:
If you look at the downswing of every spike, the temperature sharply decreases and the CO2 lags in decreasing by about 100K years. Which would once again imply that the decrease in temperature eases the mechanism that increase CO2, and that it takes a long time for the CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere. If CO2 causes temperature increases we would see CO2 decrease first even if there was some other initiater of the CO2 warming.