Lol, let us know when you have a model with a better fit for the data.

Uh, Brownian motion. There's no Law that says the earth must be destroyed on Aquarius's schedule, which is what OP amounts to.

OP is proposing a correlation between two sets of data points and not even proposing any explanatory causation. But the correlation itself is math abuse. Ordinarily in science there would be no necessity of correlation of any heavenly events to be synched with the remote stars, that's what astrology teaches. But we do have correlations that objects are more likely to strike the earth during meteor showers, which are mathematically predictable and thus not a conspiracy at all.

Now I'll take just another moment to glance at the actual geologic events proposed, using Carlson's dates and idiosyncratic spelling:

1. 144000 BP Salian climate shift

2. 120000 BP Alika 2 megaslide & tsunami Hawaii

3. 117000 BP terminal substage SE climate shift

4. ~104000 BP Greenland blitz

5. ~84000 BP Odderade event & Osis 21

6. 72000 BP Toba super eruption near extinction of humans

7. 65000 BP Heinreich event 6

8. 52000 BP Heinreich event 5 Osis 14, 15

9. 40000 BP 1st phase Australian megafauna extinction

10. 39000 BP Heinrich event 4

11. 26000 BP final extinction of Australian megafauna

12. 26000 BP onset of late Wisconsin ice age

13. 23000 BP Heinrich event 2

14. 12900 BP onset of Younger Dryas climate catastrophe

15. 10000 BP end of Wisconsin ice age

16. ~4320 BP Burkle crater event & tsunami? (Noah's flood?)

For lurkers, we've already noted that the 4.6kya event is well-correlated with Noah's flood and the other events tied to #16. I dispute #1-#15 being significant.

Oh look, Gerald Bond proposed seriously that Heinrich events happened on a 7,000-year cycle, which again is apophenia on a different scale than Carlson, and nobody believes him either. (Apophenia is seeing faces on the moon.)

As I anticipated, Heinrich events are determined by correlation with the random glaciation phases upheld by the geologists, which are determined by processing of ice cores, which are themselves subject to the same apophenia but one shared by more mainstream scientists. Unlike tree rings (which themselves have a little slippability), many ice cores have no clear annual markers to determine how many years have passed, unless you have a record of a volcanic eruption. Just estimating from this chart, we have H1 16-18, H2 24-28, H3 29-31, H4 38-40, H5 47-48, H6 60-64. So Carlson is fudging to ignore H1 and H3 and to accept H6 when it is less well-attested than the others. He says H2 23, H4 39, H5 52, H6 65, which literally contradicts the chart for all but H4. So there are three events that Carlson says happened perfectly on schedule for his needs that the first chart I find says didn't happen at those times. He is capable of specifying ranges or specifying centuries or decades but he didn't, and so he got #7, #8, and #13 flat wrong, and there's no reason for him to ignore H1 and H3. But then the Heinrich event is not a mass collapse event anyway, it's basically just a big iceberg release, but I see no model that explains that that must necessarily remove all traces of civilization and technology.

But the punchline is the faultiness of ice cores. Here is a quick overview of why the data are unreliable, especially with a flood creating rapid ice accumulation at the poles: "Glaciologists estimate that uncertainties in identification of layers will probably limit the number of countable layers to less than about 8,500 (Hammer, et al., 1978)." Here is Bill Nye causally estimating that ash in an ice core proves a volcanic eruption continuously produced ash for 15-17 years despite this never having been documented as happening, thus showing the likelihood of overcounting from a hostile witness. Other flaws in mainstream ice-core theory include the generic inability to group band differences into years with any objectivity, the consistent stretching the lower half of the core out temporally to represent 5 times as many years as the upper half (despite an equal prevalence of volcanic ash), and the inability to explain the lack of a billion years of predicted erosion in the Antarctic Gamburtsev Mountains. The smoking gun is when mainstream scientists Meese and Gow published that a 2800m core was 85,000 years old and were told by another scientist that his model said the ice at that depth should have been 110,000 years old; so Meese reran the data using resolution of 1 mm instead of 8 mm and, lo and behold, he imagined another 25,000 layers just by changing the resolution! (I heard this report directly from Jake Hebert, the link author; the link gives two other cases of circular reasoning regularly employed by the cabal.) As someone said, since fully half the dates proposed are thrown out, it's a wonder that the other half are yet accepted.

So there's no evidence the Heinrich events happened when they are guesstimated to have happened based on biased analysis of a very small number of ice cores.