At http://phys.org/print357231085.html … new research by US geologist James Kennett (and an international team) have an article in PNAS (July 27th 2015). They have used Bayesian methodology, described as statistical analysis, of 354 C14 dates from 30 different sites around the world in order to narrow down the date of the Younger Dryas Boundary event. They coincide with a date at 12,800 years ago. This range overlaps with that of a platinum peak recorded in the Greenland ice sheet (ice cores). This appears, on the face of it, as a convenient occurrence – and not everyone is impressed.
You would have to read the full paper (which George Howard will happily produce in due course) rather than the press release or abstract, in order to find out how they dealt with the carbon 14 plateau that accompanied the YDB event. They may well choose to ignore the fact of the plateau and have used Bayesian methodology as a means to deflect mainstream criticism of such an event – who have been pointing out C14 dates which contradict it (with tongue in cheek and fully aware they are not mentioning the plateau). It has been a ploy to rubbish the YDB event in the Joe Public mind. Using Bayesian methodology may well be a clever tactic as it will dispel such critical comment regarding diversion in dates.
The fact that C14 dates are all over the place is probably an indication that something extraordinary did happen at the YDB. Bayesian methodology may well minimise this but it also, or would seem to, disguise the nature of the plateau. The plateau events are caused by injections of C14 into the atmosphere – and the bigger the plateau the bigger the injection. In a way, Bayesian methodology neuters the plateau by averaging the dates. An even bigger plateau occurred i) at the Oldes Dryas event, and ii) around 40 to 30,000 years ago (where the plateau is so enormous that C14 methodology hits a brick wall).
For the moment the researchers, presumably, hope to thwart criticism – and one avenue of that criticism is the skew whiff dating from different sites. By producing an average date they hope to stop this in its tracks and then set about concentrating on the real meat of the YDB event – impact or airburst. Expect further papers from the team later this year and next year. See also www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/21/1507146112.abstract/
The same story is at Tall Bloke's shop and at Anthony's place – see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/27/younger-dryas-cooling-event-said-t… … which is a web site that is consistently critical of climate models and the way they are set up with assumed inputs (ignoring left out inputs). It is astonishing to find so many people calling themselves climate sceptics that are apparently utterly committed to Ice Age theory – which is in fact the product of modelling. Even ice cores are subject to an algorithm (something they criticise NOAA and NASA GISS for using). They interpret abrupt warming and cooling events solely from mainstream propaganda – no evidence, it seems, of scepticism. They appear to take as gospel the idea that low sun spot counts will turn out to be a cool climate spike – solely because this is what they hope is going to happen in order to bring CAGW into disrepute. What will they do if a low sun spot count does not = low temperatures. Why should it? In the 17th century Little Ice Age the Maunder Minimum came after a long period of cool weather when there were numerous reports of comets and meteor showers and various other transient phenomena in the atmosphere. Civil wars raged across Europe and the world prior to the Maunder Minimum – yet they are transfixed by the idea of a cooling cycle (instead of seeing it as one side of the 60 year solar cycle). There is a veritable barrage of commenters who seem to take the consensus view as gospel, so much so the mind begins to boggle when you wade into them chin high. Quite astonishing. It just goes to show that well educated people, the most prone to CAGW alarmism, have their minds locked into the mainstream bubble and find it difficult to navigate around the sea of fudge and kant. No wonder so many people were duped by the CAGW song sheet. It is all quite eye opening and it shows that Kennett et al have a long way to go before they will be able to convince even a minority of them to see beyond the stuff impregnated into them in their youth. Neo-catastrophism requires a younger generation to emerge in order to keep the ball rolling or the mainstream will continue in it's steam rollering manner and obliterate reality in favour of an invented view of the past.