I have no idea what you are trying to tell me here, but I certainly don't see any AHA! moments. In fact, it's not really clear to me what they are saying that relates to our discussion.

I had trouble reading the article or viewing the figures due to the odd features of that text display system, but I did manage to cut-and-paste the abstract and the text for the Fig 8 graph, which you called my attention to. I reproduce them here in full in case that others reading this might be able to make some sense of them. I have italicized the text I feel might be significant in both.

ABSTRACT
A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based on Betula nana (dwarf birch) leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The record is of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollen zone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene (Preboreal pollen zone).

The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxy for temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered.

I interpret this to be saying that CO2 levels were fluctuating wildly during climate transitions (is this really all that surprising?) which conflicts with CO2 levels derived from ice core data. Their conclusion seems to be that CO2 is more significant in climate change than ocean current changes.

Fig. 8. Comparison with Antarctic ice core-based atmospheric CO2 record. On the left hand side is the Hässeldala Core 5 stomatal index based CO2 concentration record, showing approximate minimum and maximum CO2 concentrations (see Table 3 for errors). On the right hand side is an Antarctic CO2 record reconstructed from air bubbles in the ice cores obtained at Dome C by the EPICA project (Monnin et al., 2001), synchronized with the Greenland ice core timescale (Lemieux-Dudon et al., 2010). The ages of the main climate change boundaries for each record are illustrated with dashed lines, surrounded by their error ranges in light grey (based on Walker et al., 2008 for the Greenland ice core chronology). The darker grey bars, which overlap the error ranges shown in light grey, illustrate that the ages for each of the boundaries are comparable within their error ranges.

The records, although displaying some similarities, are clearly different. Firstly, the magnitude and range of CO2 concentrations are much larger in the Hässeldala Port record. Secondly, the stomatal-based record shows a more dynamic CO2 development through time, in particular across the climate change boundaries, while the ice core-based record shows an almost linear, smoothed development.

The only thing I can interpret here is that CO2 profiles developed from two separate sources and two separate techniques do not agree. Is this all that surprising? It also suggests that there were rapidly changing CO2 levels during a period of climate change. Again, I'm not particularly surprised by this.

I regret I couldn't get a good enough look at the chart scales to deermine what kind of time scales we are talking about here. Years? Decades? Centuries?

Even if this article's implication of the unreliability of ice core data is correct, I have never used ice core data in my presentations here. I don't understand the technolgy or the science involved.

My arguments have been based on the satellite data documenting Arctic ice, because I've worked with satellite data extensively in the past, I understand its strengths and weaknesses and how it is processed and interpreted. It also correlates very highly with CO2 numbers measured directly in situ (not interpreted from fossil data) during the time period when both satellite and CO2 data collections coincide.

There is nothing in this article I can find that either supports or contradicts anything I said in this thread. I just don't get the gotcha here.