Funny carbon dating results
If you follow the link in footnote 25 from my article you will see a link to the Belfast tree ring correlations, so your statement, “There are several tree-ring chronologies which are reported to agree with each other” is already answered.
Obviously I am questioning the conclusions of that study.
Second, while agreement on an outcome among several independent techniques is generally considered a good indication of a reasonably reliable outcome, all tree-ring chronologies are derived using the same basic assumptions, so they can hardly be considered to be independent determinations.For example, one study published by “a group of researchers from the U. Forest Service and the University of Minnesota” concludes fallen conifers will take 57 to 124 years to completely disintegrate, This, of course, depends on the exact environmental conditions, but fallen trees generally do not last for centuries, let alone millennia.Tree ring dating also assumes a single annual growth ring, but this assumption has been demonstrated to be false, in that BCPs have been shown to develop multiple annual rings when under harsher, more arid conditions.My article quoted a secular expert in dendrochronology, Dr.Grissino-Mayer, who openly raised major questions regarding the reliability of dendrochronology at the 2015 Association of American Geographers annual meeting in Chicago.
Search for funny carbon dating results:
Unless the investigator was there to observe and measure all variables, it can never be known for certain that the final observed and measured ratios of a sample under investigation reflect a simple linear relationship going back into deep time.