Scientists consider the ice in Greenland a more accurate "historical" record than Antarctica (which is what the origial question was about) because it gets much more precipitation. The ice has much thicker seasonal layers that provide more sample data. Antarctic ice has considerably thinner seasonal layers. This means it provides a much longer timeline before the pressure causes the individual layers to become indistinguishable.
You've tried to answer a question about the age of core samples taken from Antartica with an article about someone's speculation about the formation of the Greenaland ice sheet based on incidental data, and that ice sheet is a physically much different propostion that what's found in Antarctica.
==You’ve tried to answer a question about the age of core samples taken from Antartica with an article about someone’s speculation about the formation of the Greenaland ice sheet based on incidental data, and that ice sheet is a physically much different propostion that what’s found in Antarctica.
That’s interesting. Wasn’t it you who said the following re: the Greenland ice cores:
“I don’t see any positive evidence is support of YEC theory or any kind of analysis of those ice cores that verifies or supports the 6-10k year hypothesis.”
I guess you have decided to change the subject now that you realize that the evidence coming out of Greenland is better explained by recent catastrophism, rather than it being a record of “millions or billions” of years.