So your implication that C and dendrochronology are ‘wholly reliable’ methods is not shared by the experts in those fields.These methods are highly subjective, and rely upon a rigid adherence to uniformitarian principles.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.

Funny carbon dating results video

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.

A similar effect has long been recognised with the fictitious ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates that occur in molluscs when they absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon from carbonate rocks.

In addition, creationists recognise that the global atmospheric build-up of Corals can be dated using U-Th and C14 on the same sample and this produces the same curve.

U-Th dates are not affected by solar activity and so that can check C14 dates.

Cores of lake beds such as Lake Malawi and Lynch's Crater show a linear increase in C14 age with depth as would be expected.I also question the idea that C calibration can take account of ‘altered solar activity’ as you put it.If these changes in the past have not been observed, then they cannot be accurately quantified and so the models cannot take such changes into account.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.Thanks for your question Bill; it is very involved and has multiple lines of reasoning within it.C, dendrochronology, and uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating techniques are indeed trustworthy, as are the experts and labs that perform these tests.