The article is an interesting read, and highlights the need for future iterations of the radiocarbon calibration curves to incorporate more single year measurements. Indeed, one is almost getting the sense that IntCal13 (and prior curves) may systematically be giving older calibrated radiocarbon dates for a lot of the curve, whilst IntCal20 seems to be giving more accurate calibrations particularly around any portion with a good deal of single year measurements (see for example the 17th century BC and this AD 770s section of the curves where lots of single year radiocarbon measurements have been performed and show that previous calibration curves give older calibrated dates). It will be interesting to see why the lower resolution iterations of the previous curves are giving older calibrated dates though.

With regard my old post (was that really 11 years ago!?!?!?), the last decade of research suggests that there was no volcanic eruption around 774/5 (and certainly no comet impact as suggested by some authors to explain the 774/5 Miyake event), and so the slight 2 year growth reduction in the Irish oaks is just due to random growth. Indeed, looking at the data again with a bit more knowledge and expertise (and perhaps, arguably less naivety) than I had back then, I would not even put any significance on the growth reduction today, it looking just like noise, and I dont think anyone would find the growth rings interesting if not directed to them by 774/5 event!

Jonny

The path to good scholarship is paved with imagined patterns. - David M Raup