So, since you actually are discussing real data and I like discussing real data, I dug out my copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. So I am looking at page 66-67, the graph that I think you are talking about. This is the graph of carbon dioxide and temperature over the past 650,000 years. Am I right that this is what you are talking about?

First thing to notice is the time scale is way to large on this graph to see differences of a mere 700 years. There are more fine scaled graphs covering shorter time periods (e.g. the last 2000 years) that are most pertinent to the current crisis that I have looked at and linked to, but Gore does not show such graphs. I will discuss some of this later. But first, Gore's graph on page 66-67 of his book.

If you look from about 300,000 years ago to present, I thik anyone would agree that the graphs match extremely well and if anything carbon dioxide rise predates temperature rise, though I would say you can not say that given the time scale. All you can say is that these two graphs correlate AMAZINGLY well and (as I said in my previous reply) you have to go to physics to understand the causation whereby it is well known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

If you look before 300,000 years ago I may see what you mean by temperature lagging carbon dioxide. The problem with such a determination is that the further back you go, the larger the error in dating, so BOTH graphs will be fuzzier in terms of exact dating. Again, I don't think you can determine causation from this graph, merely look at the overall trend and see that the correlation is extremely close. You also can see on this grpah that the modern trend is outside any natural range over the entire 650,000 year time scale. Close correlation and a modern, radical departure from the natural pattern is all you can get looking at such large time scales.

To understand more about causation, you can look for timing on smaller time scales (within last 1000-2000 years, say) combined with the known physics I already mentioned.

There are of course graphs covering a finer time scale here. Let's look in some detail.

If we look at the inset graph here, we can see the current carbon dioxide anomaly in some detail (looking at the last 1000 years). We have a largely steady or slight increase until 1800, when we see a clear inflection point to a steeper slope. That is where we begin to see deviation. This is approximately when deforestation and coal use start to take off. But the slope of the curve around 1800 is still not so deviant from what you might see from natural variations, though I think most scientists think we are starting to have an effect as far back as the 1800's. What is most dramatic about the inset graph is that you get a second inflection point around 1950-1960 and the curve now enters a rate of change that is unprecedented on the larger graph covering 650,000 years I discussed before. So the modern trend began around 1800, though how much is human caused and how much is natural is much harder to determine at that earlier phase. After about 1950 the trend is dramatic, unprecedented and correlates very well with modern industrial and population trends.

Now let's look at temperature change since 1850 here. You can see no real deviation in temperature until about 1910. After that you see an almost steady increase until 1940 when there is a brief but significant decrease. As I recall there was some considerable speculation about this decrease, but it soon re-enters the upward sloping pattern and keeps going. This pattern (the 1940 downturn aside) would fit the effect of a carbon dioxide increase starting in the early to mid 1800's, with temperature rising only around 1900. If you look carefully you can see the increase gets even more dramatic around 1990, give or take. This is what you would expect from a carbon dioxide trend starting around 1950-1960. For some time now I have looked at graphs like this and been struck by how the temperature comes after the carbon dioxide change in a way that would be very much expected.

Now global warming models predict downtrends as well as uptrends. It is not expected to be one solid upwards trend. The 1940's decline could be due to any number of factors, but doesn't detract from the overall trend.

I would add one thing. For awhile atmospheric measurements did not always give the same warming trend as surface measurements. Those differences have been resolved as a better understanding of atmospheric dynamics has evolved and atmospheric measurements now agree well with surface measurements in terms of the warming trend.

I hope this helps. Again, if you are only looking at the 650,000 year graph, you will see mushier data in the earlier phases and you can never judge what is happening on less than 1000 year time periods. You have to go to the graphs that plot more recent trends and THEN you can try and judge what comes first. Looking over the post-industrial revolution period, it is extremely clear that carbon dioxide increase precedes temperature increases.