Nothing creative about it. Although this graph may not show the lag due to the scale, Each of those grid cells is 10k years, (not 2500 as you claim) so seeing a 1/12 of a grid cell lead is tough for old tech writer eyes. However, it is pretty well known that CO2 does indeed lag behind temperature by 800 years (give or take). Ice cores confirm this (the only real proxy we have for data going back that far) A very likely cause for this could be that as ocean temps warm, their capacity for absorbing CO2 diminishes.
As for the graph, how would you position it? You could make the co2 scale go from 100 to 600 to make co2 change seem smaller OR you could do what they did and use the scale that fits the measurements for both temp and co2. Sorry, your claim is invalid
Oh, and I do not make the claims, scientists do:
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.
In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.
So what's the latest on the issue? To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."
<Mic drop>
Like most sides on this debate, you seem to be cherry-picking the data to support your beliefs. And most of the data you've cited is relatively worthless because it is a measure of air temperature, not sea temperature. I wrote an article last winter about the effects of climate change on the ski industry. I learned that air temperature based studies really don't tell you much. Since the preponderance of thermal energy on the planet is stored in the oceans, meaningful data should be gleaned from sea water and land mass temperatures, which it almost never is. I'm certain there are reputable sources of data that directly negate everything you've cited. So eventually, this becomes a contest of who cherry picks the best. Total waste of time.
One other point may be worth mentioning. I recall some time ago that you railed at the amount of $$$ being spent to "combat" climate change and how it's being misused. For millennia, mankind has spent resources in an effort to alter geophysical phenomena to the benefit of humans. Ancients would erect aqueducts (at great expense) to bring water to naturally non-arable land to grow crops. In the mid 20th century, NCAR tried to artificially increase rainfall by seeding clouds with silver iodide powders. For centuries, humans have built dams to control water runoff to prevent flooding.
Are you suggesting that these have all been mistakes? Should all the flood control dams in the world be taken out and we should just let the climate do it's thing? It seems to be your approach with global warming.
The efforts to alter climates to benefit mankind are nothing new. We've been doing this stuff for a long time. Why stop now?
