At http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/dendrochronology-the-mad-carbo… .. Tim Cullen gives an opinion on the process involved where the C14 model was wedded to the bristlecone pine dendrochronology, an odd sort of marraige of convenience in that C14 was rocking after revelations that dates produced by the methodology not as reliable as claimed – and did not meet the requirements of the orthodox Egyptology. It is now well known that there have been a series of plateaus in C14 that mess up the reliability of the methodology at those points in time. What is not accepted, as yet, is the cause of those C14 injections into the atmosphere. They are assumed to be a result of big CME events on the Sun and as catastrophism is unfashionable, even unmentionable, the idea that cosmic events might cause C14 injections is as yet, not onboard the bandwagon. Hence, in a uniformitarian bubble, scientists looked for a way to keep it all afloat. Universities had invested money in the C14 laboratories and expected it to provide an income. This meant, the unsaid caveat – they had to keep the Egyptologists sweet. This then is the politics behind it – now read what Tim Cullen says about the method involved in the marraige of C14 with dendrochronology.
The process of merging rings from trees growing on high mountains in California is baffling in some ways. Can tree rings in such an environment really be reliable in providing a match with trees in lowland locations. Snow and frost is a major factor in the bristlecone pine location – less so in the lowlands. However, the tree rings do show up those periods where there are a succession of very low growth due to extremely cold weather – as in the 536-45AD period, or around 1628-5BC etc. What Cullen concentrates on is the saw tooth pattern of the tree ring graph. He claims the saw teeth occur each time a new tree is added to the dendro – a total of 19 long lived bristlecone pines. I don't know if this is true but that would be amazing if it is – why would they ignore the saw teeth if there was a perfectly good reason. Cullen then says there is a possibility they used trees back to front in order to get the saw teeth bits to fit with the C14 injections – and again, if so, this would be counter productive – or would it? Might that be the objective – to get the tree rings and C14 data to fit the preconceived orthodox chronology?
However, we may note the process is so well established that new methodologies are forced to blend with the C14/ dendro calibration model so there is no chance any time soon of a change in dating methodology. In the grand scheme of things, as far as Joe Public is concerned, if dates are awry it doesn't matter a great deal.
Meanwhile, Gunnar Heinsohn has written up a pdf article on dendrochronology which is being passed around by Clark Whelton.