The difference between the Medieval Ice age and today? It was long observed that sun spots diminished during the medieval ice age. The observation was known as the Mander Minimum, this lasted around 70yrs. Given that the sun works in cycles of 360years intervals of positive and negative energy. We last say a negative minimum of sun spot activity and thus atomic galvinazations of sorts. However, in this 360 interval we are a positive maximum of solar activity resulting in increase atomic galvinazation. What this means its that we might be going into a heat threshold unfathomable to imagine. Temperature fluxuation might cease completely with an increase in solar activity parallel with the greenhouse effect.

Additional Details

1 month ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mander_Mini...

1 month ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mander_mini...
brought to you by %26quot;Global Warming Lies%26quot; i might point out.

however, it clearly shows that the difference in average global temperature between the depths of the ice age, and what might be considered %26quot;normal%26quot; was less than 1 single degree.

most often when questions like this are asked, they are posted as a denial of AGW.
sometimes they say we%26#039;re cooling.
sometimes they say it%26#039;s natural.
neither is true.
it%26#039;s warming, and we%26#039;re the problem.
and if you read the warming projections of 3-8 degrees, it%26#039;s fairly obvious that%26#039;s way outside the %26quot;norm%26quot;. 67% 2 Votes

Other Answers (1)

• The difference between the Medieval %26quot;Ice Age%26quot; and our current maximum solar activity?
  
  It%26#039;s like comparing the burner on your gas stove during it%26#039;s %26#039;Off%26#039; and %26#039;On%26#039; states. If it is %26#039;Off%26#039; , you can put your hand on it, but I%26#039;d wait until the pot rack has cooled down. If it is %26#039;On%26#039;, you%26#039;re going to get burned no matter what.
  
  If this is an argument against Global Warming being the result of human activity, it is false. Also false would be the claim that Global Warming is solely the result of human activity.
  
  Global Warming is the result of all elements that affect the Earth%26#039;s temperature: Solar activity, Chemical composition of the Atmosphere (at every level, not just the ozone layer), Saline density of the oceans, Flora coverage of the Earth%26#039;s surface, Fauna activity and density on the Earth%26#039;s surface, Tectonic movement of the Earth%26#039;s crust, Volcanic activity, etc...
  
  Change any one of these things and you get a different result now than the last time.
  
  What has changed: Fewer forests to absorb carbon dioxide, Less ice caps to reflect increased Solar emission, Increased Ocean salinity resulting in less plankton growth to absorb carbon dioxide, Excessive concentration of Fauna in small geographic areas (both animal and human), Increased Volcanic activity, Increased Solar activity, etc... This list does not include any type of pollution effect from people. Now add in all the human variables. The point is that we can make changes to the human activity more effectively and on an individual and societal level.
  
  If you take off the name %26#039;Global Warming%26#039; and call it %26#039;Pollution%26#039; like we did in the 1960%26#039;s, 1970%26#039;s and 1980%26#039;s, you%26#039;ll realize that this discussion has been actively going on for more than a century. 33% 1 Vote