The reading passage and the professor shares the same topic and present it from different perspectives. The article states that little ice age was formed and provides three reasons for support. However, professor gives strong argument in the favour of opposite and refutes each of the author’s reasons. The professor says that arguments made in reading are out of date and scientists have new information.
First, the reading states that cooling may have been caused by disruption of ocean currents. Ocean currents were affected by melted glaciers that release large amount of fresh water in to ocean current. This point is challenged by professor, he posits that disrupting ocean currents should effect europe and north america only. Then why Some eastern parts like new zealand and also south africa are affected. So scientists that concluded that this may not be reason.
Second, the article claims that dark clouds of dust and sulfur gas released in to the atmosphere by volcanic eruption may have caused this little ice age. However, this argument is rebutted in the lecture by saying that volcanic eruption will release large amount of dust and this dust will cause striking visual effects. No reports of like that relative happenings are seen. So scientists concluded that volcanic eruption is not strong enough to cause global warming.
Last but not least the reading avers that growth of trees by decrease of human populations contributed to cooling of climate. The professor contends this point by saying that the process takes long time to work.More over human populations have remained less for short periods of time. They increased dramatically. Forests are cut by human population to clear fields. This fields are used for growing food for increasing populations. So forests are no longer enough to cause the long term global warming of climate.
Hi, not too bad. You have a good format and you have showed the contrast between the writing and the lecture. You captured and communicated the main points of the lecture, but you could have added more secondary details, Also twice you talked about global warming instead of global cooling, which might be considered a big error here.
It’s hard to tell how big those errors of using warming instead of cooling would be. Without those mistakes, I think it would score about a 3.5 out of 5, very close to a 4 though.