New ice core analysis shows sharp Greenland warming spike

Interesting how information in other articles tell a contrasting story.

As said before, if the "other articles" are much more unreliable and not supported by any scientific source that would explain completely the discrepancy, choosing better sources can help in not forming mistaken opinions.

Interesting how information in other articles tell a contrasting story.

what a verified news dated back thousand years,how somebody cant trust and believe in it???

It is a very reliable method. The ice is in layers allowing individual years to be identified. According to the article the scientists measured the concentrations of two different oxygen isotopes in the ice to determine what the average temperature was. The concentrations of those isotopes are affected by outside temperature in known ways. This gives you a way to measure temperatures decades in the past.

You can also see soot layers that were the result of big volcanic eruptions. If you count back ice layers in glaciers and sea ice in various parts of the world and find soot at the same year or years you can tell the extent of a particular volcanic eruption. Ice cores tell a lot of tales. When I was a kid in the 1960s I spent endless hours reading about this stuff in National Geographic. Ice core science is not something new.

what a verified news dated back thousand years,how somebody cant trust and believe in it???

sorry abt my irony :)

if any chance get email contact of author of article as I wish to get lotto winning numbers from him.dont worry we share profit fifty fifty :)

Why would you ask that? I read it, not you.

Because it can be a mistake to draw equivalences between a well supported article like the one here and something just baselessly claiming something different.

Seeing how you can't even reference that opposite article this seems to be the case.

That's the whole point because you believe it to be? We need more than that of course.

So your argument is that you ignore that articles written with serious scientific basis are much more trustworthy than others without evidence to support them?

That would be a problem much more serious than drawing false equivalences, and can explain being mistaken so frequently, having unreliable, invalid or plainly false sources causes this.

Just when I finished reading the opposite in a different article.

What was the primary source for that different article? the whole point of an article like this one being trust worthy is that is being supported by actual scientific data and the expert opinion of professionals in the field. If someone without a valid authority says the opposite without any data to support that conclusion then there is no point in considering both articles as equivalent. That is called a false equivalence.

Just when I finished reading the opposite in a different article.