Hi Rich, thanks for sharing!
I haven't read the report yet, but I looked at the conference slide presented in your blog post, and I'm afraid there might be certain misunderstanding there. One has to know what exactly are the figures therein presented. Firstly, I suspect that the carbon ages values are uncalibrated there. Secondly, what are those plus-minus numbers? Is it 95% confidence interval, or what?
EDIT: Briefly checked the report itself, and those figures are indeed uncalibrated. The plus-minus is not 95% confidence, it's one sigma (not sure with which confidence).
I haven't read the report yet, but I looked at the conference slide presented in your blog post, and I'm afraid there might be certain misunderstanding there. One has to know what exactly are the figures therein presented. Firstly, I suspect that the carbon ages values are uncalibrated there. Secondly, what are those plus-minus numbers? Is it 95% confidence interval, or what?
EDIT: Briefly checked the report itself, and those figures are indeed uncalibrated. The plus-minus is not 95% confidence, it's one sigma (not sure with which confidence).

