[Ragnar54]

I agree with your post for the most part. However, the point of my question was a dig at the offered "explanation" for the lag between temperature increases and increases in atmospheric CO2. As the "Global Warming Swindle" program demonstrated, the real explanation is that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature changes.

I'm personally rooting for an ironic conclusion to the GW debate:
1. Gore has it backwards: atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases (not the other way around).
2. Gore has it backwards: GW is actually beneficial (not harmful).
3. Gore has it backwards: Humans have not been causing GW, but have in fact been slowing it down (compared to the warming taking place on other planets). This last has not been proven, but seems reasonable if you consider that volcanoes only manage to eject a small percentage of their eruptions to a significant altitude; jet planes are much more efficient at dumping sulfur compounds at 30,000+ feet.

It may turn out that Gore does not have it backwards, but is merely 100% wrong on point 3.

[cogitator]

CO2 concentration changes in glacial-interglacial cycles are not driven by temperature changes; they are initiated by solar insolation changes which may initially result in a slight temperature increase (or decrease, when speaking of an interglacial-glacial transition). Subsequent temperature effects are driven by CO2. This will be explained in point #5 of my profile.

Regarding the "warming" of other bodies in the Solar System, see point #2 in my current profile.