Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
SCHOOLS DIVISION OFFICE OF QUEZON CITY
LAGRO HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT V, QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

POSITION PAPER
“Global Warming is real”

In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the subject

English for Academic and Professional Purposes.

Submitted by:
STEM 12- DARWIN

Siagan, Karl Gerard M.

Bien, Jannella Gayle T.
Sabiniano, Jericho Jr R.
Reyes, Karl E.
Cillo, Michelle
Mirador, Stephen Mark A.

Submitted to:
Mrs. Ariann De Guzman

MARCH 2021

Address: Misa de Gallo St., cor. Ascension Ave., Lagro Subd., Brgy. Greater Lagro,
Novaliches, Quezon City, Metro Manila
Telephone No.: (02) 8693-73-31
(02) 8939-90-26
 Global Warming Brightside: A Good Shot for Crops

Global warming is the unusual increase of heat in Earth’s surface, oceans, and
atmosphere. Earth’s climate had changed throughout time, thus enabling scientists to
discover and record different types of information about Earth that reveal climate change
signals. The globe is heating up. Both land and oceans are warmer now than they were
when record keeping began, in 1880, and temperatures are still ticking upward. This rise in
heat is global warming, in a nutshell. Here are the bare numbers, according to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Between 1880 and 1980, the global
annual temperature increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit (0.07 degrees Celsius)
per decade, on average. Since 1981, the rate of increase has sped up, to 0.32 degrees F
(0.18 degrees C) per decade. This has led to an overall 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) increase
in global average temperature today compared to the preindustrial era. In 2019, the
average global temperature over land and ocean was 1.75 degrees F (0.95 degrees C) above
the 20th-century average. That made 2019 the second hottest year on record, trailing only
2016. This rise in heat is caused by humans. The burning of fossil fuels has released
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which trap warmth from the sun and drive up
surface and air temperatures. According to NASA’s collected evidence and measurements,
the heat-trapping nature of CO2 or the carbon dioxide could create changes; global
temperature rise, warming ocean, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreat, decreased snow
cover, sea-level rise, declining arctic sea ice, extreme events, and ocean acidification
updated on September 2020. However, Union of concerned Scientist (American Scientist,
2018), and Nature Education Knowledge (2012), and Northern Arizona University Research
(Global Change Biology, 2018) stated there are short- and long-term benefits from global
warming to both humanity and nature.

Between about 800,000 years ago and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,
CO2's presence in the atmosphere amounted to about 280 parts per million (ppm, meaning
there were about 208 molecules of CO2 in the air per every million air molecules). As of
2018 (the last year when full data are available), the average CO2 in the atmosphere was
407.4 ppm, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information. That may not
sound like much, but according to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, levels of CO2
haven't been that high since the Pliocene epoch, which occurred between 3 million and 5
million years ago. At that time, the Arctic was ice-free at least part of the year and
significantly warmer than it is today, according to 2013 research published in the journal
Science.

"We know through high-accuracy instrumental measurements that there is an

unprecedented increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that CO2 absorbs infrared
radiation [heat] and the global mean temperature is increasing," Keith Peterman, a
professor of chemistry at York College of Pennsylvania, and his research partner, Gregory
Foy, an associate professor of chemistry at York College of Pennsylvania, told Live Science in
a joint email message. CO2 makes its way into the atmosphere through a variety of routes.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and is, by far, the biggest U.S. contribution to emissions
that warm the globe. According to the 2018 EPA report, U.S. fossil fuel combustion,
including electricity generation, released just over 5.8 billion tons (5.3 billion metric tons) of
CO2 into the atmosphere in 2016.

However, Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas that helps to trap heat in
our atmosphere. Without it, our planet would be inhospitably cold. However, a gradual
increase in CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere is helping to drive global warming,
threatening to disrupt our planet's climate as average global temperatures gradually rise, as
well as the photosynthesis of plants that helps them to grow faster that leads to High
production rate of vegetables and there will be no shortage of supply, which can feed the
people especially now that the Global Population is continuous increasing. Hence, Global
warming is real: The positive effects of high concentrations of CO2 in terms of greater plant
growth, yield in crop production, and above-ground biomass.

High Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb and traps more Infrared
Radiation back to earth surface. Yes, it is. Radiation heat transfer due to carbon dioxide
plays an important role in the greenhouse effect, climate change, and global warming. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from the United Nations concluded that
the greenhouse gas emission (particularly carbon dioxide) due to the burning of fossil fuels
carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change and global warming. The first estimates of
how changes in the global concentration of carbon dioxide might affect mean global surface
temperature were made by Arrhenius . He demonstrated that an increase in the
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by a factor of two would lead to a heating of
the earth's temperature by 5–6 °C. Calendar demonstrated through laboratory experiments
that increased carbon dioxide concentration could have significant global effects on the
surface temperature of the earth. It was also speculated for the first time that humans could
have a significant influence on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Complicated
climate change issues thus have led to considerable controversy in scientific commentaries
and articles books and monographs, describing the factors of human activities (IPCC, 1996),
solar variability cloud cover and aerosols , biosphere , urbanization and land-use change,
volcanism , magnetism , etc. The energy entering, reflected, absorbed, and emitted by the
Earth system are the components of the Earth's radiation budget. Based on the physics
principle of conservation of energy, this radiation budget represents the accounting of the
balance between incoming radiation, which is almost entirely solar radiation, and outgoing
radiation, which is partly reflected solar radiation and partly radiation emitted from the
Earth system, including the atmosphere. A budget that's out of balance can cause the
temperature of the atmosphere to increase or decrease and eventually affect our climate.
The units of energy employed in measuring this incoming and outgoing radiation are watts
per square meter (W/m2). Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared
energy (together sometimes called "shortwave radiation") from the Sun drive the Earth's
climate system. Some of this incoming radiation is reflected off clouds, some is absorbed by
the atmosphere, and some passes through to the Earth's surface. Larger aerosol particles in
the atmosphere interact with and absorb some of the radiation, causing the atmosphere to
warm. The heat generated by this absorption is emitted as long wave infrared radiation,
some of which radiates out into space. The solar radiation that passes through Earth's
atmosphere is either reflected off snow, ice, or other surfaces or is absorbed by the Earth's
surface. Heat resulting from the absorption of incoming shortwave radiation is emitted as
long wave radiation. Radiation from the warmed upper atmosphere, along with a small
amount from the Earth's surface, radiates out to space. Most of the emitted long wave
radiation warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms our planet's surface.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide)
absorb most of the Earth's emitted long wave infrared radiation, which heats the lower
atmosphere. In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits long wave radiation, some of which
radiates toward the Earth's surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable.
Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane
increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of
emitted radiation, resulting in "global warming," or, more broadly, global climate change.

Even the carbon dioxide theory is not new; the basic idea was first precisely stated in
1861 by the noted British physicist John Tyndall. He attributed climatic temperature-
changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the
theory, carbon dioxide controls temperature because the carbon dioxide molecules in the
air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are
virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun's energy to the earth. But
the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the
spectrum. This radiation is most intense at wavelengths very close to the principal
absorption band (13 to 17 microns) of the carbon dioxide spectrum. When the carbon
dioxide concentration is sufficiently high, even its weaker absorption bands become
effective, and a greater amount of infrared radiation is absorbed. Because the carbon
dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the
atmosphere. A familiar instance of this "greenhouse" effect is the heating-up of a closed
automobile when it stands for a while in the summer sun. Like the atmosphere, the car's
windows are transparent to the sun's visible radiation, which warms the upholstery and
metal inside the car; these materials in turn re-emit some of their heat as infrared radiation.
Glass, like carbon dioxide, absorbs some of this radiation and thus traps the heat, and the
temperature inside the car rises. Water vapor and ozone, as well as carbon dioxide, have
this effect because they too absorb energy in the infrared region. But the climatic effects
due to carbon dioxide are almost entirely independent of the amount of these other two
gases. For the most part their absorption bands occur in different regions of the spectrum.
In addition, nearly all water vapor remains close to the ground, while carbon dioxide
diffuses more evenly through the atmosphere. Thus throughout most of the atmosphere
carbon dioxide is the main factor determining changes in the radiation flux. The 2.3 X 1012
(2,300 billion) tons of carbon dioxide in the earth's present atmosphere constitute some .03
per cent of its total mass. The quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is determined
by the amounts supplied and withdrawn from three other great reservoirs: oceans, rocks
and living organisms. The oceans contain some 1.3 X 1014 tons of carbon dioxide—about 50
times as much as the air. Some of the gas is dissolved in the water, but most of it is present
in carbonate compounds. The oceans exchange about 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide
with the atmosphere each year. When the equilibrium is disturbed, the oceans may engulf
or disgorge billions of additional tons of carbon dioxide. This puts a damper on the
fluctuations in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere: when the atmospheric
concentration rises, the oceans tend to absorb much of the excess; when it fails, the oceanic
reservoir replenishes it.

CO2 are 1 of the heat trapping gases when its get higher it could be more dangerous
in our environment. We cannot deny that CO2 is the most prominent greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere that creates a problem to our environment. High carbon dioxide concentrations
reduce the ability of animals to transfer oxygen. Carbon dioxide concentrations should be
maintained below 10 mg/1 , although many animals can tolerate higher levels, especially if
the dissolved oxygen is high. For marine plants, the more dissolved carbon dioxide the
better, as it is often the growth limiting substance. In fact, in the mass culturing of
phytoplankton, such as may be needed in bivalve or shrimp hatcheries, direct carbon
dioxide injection into the water may be used to increase growth rate. Some care must be
taken to control carbon dioxide concentrations even in aquatic plant culture as it is possible
to reduce the pH to below 5 at extremely high concentrations. The impact of elevated levels
of atmospheric CO2 on land and in water will be very different but both already have
scientists worried, particularly with regard to the fate of calciferous marine organisms such
as corals. “On the ocean side, the effects of CO2 rise are much more pernicious,” said Ken
Caldeira of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, DC,
USA. “For land plants, CO2 can be thought of as an essential nutrient. There is a constant
struggle [for land plants] to let in more CO2 and let out as little water as possible. But ocean
organisms are almost never limited by the availability of CO2. They are more constrained by
light or availability of nutrients.” The crucial point for marine organisms is that rising levels
of CO2 will lower the pH of their environment, which will challenge their biochemistry—
particularly organisms such as corals, coccolithophores (single-celled algae), crustaceans and
mollusks, all of which use calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to produce external skeletons or shell
coverings. Seawater is slightly alkaline, with a pH now in the range of 7.9 to 8.2 in the open
ocean. This value has decreased by an average of approximately 0.1 since the beginning of
the industrial era as a result of the anthropomorphic release of CO2 into the atmosphere,
which, in turn, has increased the concentration of CO2 in the oceans. CO2 lowers the
oceanic pH by increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in the water. It also reacts
with water to form several ionic and non-ionic species including bicarbonate ions (HCO3−),
which are less alkaline than carbonate ions (CO32−). The net effect is a decrease in alkalinity
and a lower concentration of carbonates in the water. The decreasing amounts of calcium
carbonates threaten a wide variety of calcifying marine organisms. The timing of their
potential extinction will depend largely on the type of CaCO3 that they require. Corals, for
example, use aragonite to build their exoskeleton, whereas many plankton organisms use
calcite for protective coverings. Aragonite dissolves more easily than calcite, so there is a
more immediate threat to corals and their associated reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef
off the coast of Queensland, Australia, which spans an area of 344,400 square km. According
to Caldeira, coral reefs could start to dissipate once the level of CaCO3 falls below 3.25
times over-saturation, or as soon as atmospheric levels of CO2 reach 550 ppm. “At current
emission levels, this will happen by mid-century, perhaps even 2040,” he said. The outlook is
less bleak for other calciferous organisms such as planktons. However, even they will not be
able to survive the higher levels of CO2 that are likely if humans continue to burn significant
amounts of fossil fuel; Caldeira believes that 750 ppm in the atmosphere is the upper limit
in which they could survive. “In any case, as CO2 concentrations increase it becomes harder
for organisms with shells to build, and they need to put more energy in, leaving less for
reproduction, finding food and avoiding predators,” he said. Some organisms might
therefore start to become extinct even before concentrations of CaCO3 reach the critical
point, as they will be unfit to compete against non-calciferous rivals. At least one organism,
the pteropod, also known as the sea snail or sea butterfly—which inhabits cold waters in
which CO2 dissolves more readily—is already losing shell mass. “With respect to calcifiers,
areas which already exhibit a low CaCO3 saturation state will be affected first,” commented
Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Senior Research Scientist at the Laboratoire d'Océanographie in
Villefranche-sur-mer, France. “These are high-latitude regions and deep waters.” The
implications of falling oceanic pH levels are less clear for non-calciferous marine organisms
because some might actually benefit from the indirect consequences of rising CO2
concentrations. “There is some evidence that elevated CO2 will stimulate primary
production of some species,” noted Gattuso. “There is also some recent data suggesting
that nitrogen fixation will be stimulated. Winners could be identified as research
progresses.” Yet, there will also be losers among non-calciferous organisms. Caldeira
pointed out that rising levels of CO2 could affect oxygen and CO2 transport in the blood of
marine organisms because the binding behavior of hemoglobin is sensitive to blood pH.
When blood enters the gills, the low CO2 concentration there reduces the acidity and causes
the pH of the blood to rise, which encourages hemoglobin to bind to oxygen and to release
CO2. As the blood circulates and oxygen is converted to CO2, the blood pH falls and
increases the ability of hemoglobin to bind to CO2. More CO2 in the water will decrease the
pH around the gills and, therefore, allow less CO2 to be expelled from the blood. This effect
will be amplified by global warming because warm water can take up less oxygen. As
Caldeira pointed out, organisms might adapt by generating more oxygen-fixating pigment,
but again this could come at the expense of other fitness attributes such as reproductive
ability; squid are among those most vulnerable to this threat (Caldeira et al, 2005).

An increase in the amount of carbon dioxide creates an overabundance of

greenhouse gases that trap additional heat. This trapped heat leads to melting ice caps and
rising ocean levels, which cause flooding. By trapping heat from the sun, greenhouse gases
have kept Earth's climate habitable for humans and millions of other species. But those
gases are now out of balance and threaten to change drastically which living things can
survive on this planet—and where. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide—the most
dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas—are at the highest levels ever recorded.
Greenhouse gas levels are so high primarily because humans have released them into the air
by burning fossil fuels. The gases absorb solar energy and keep heat close to Earth's surface,
rather than letting it escape into space. The roots of the greenhouse effect concept lie in the
19th century, when French mathematician Joseph Fourier calculated in 1824 that the Earth
would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius
was the first to link a rise in carbon dioxide gas from burning fossil fuels with a warming
effect. Nearly a century later, American climate scientist James E. Hansen testified to
Congress that “The greenhouse effect has been detected and is changing our climate now."
Today, climate change is the term scientists use to describe the complex shifts, driven by
greenhouse gas concentrations, that are now affecting our planet’s weather and climate
systems. Climate change encompasses not only the rising average temperatures we refer to
as global warming but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and
habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. The variations decrease with altitude and
increase with northern latitude. Figure 1 indicates that CO2-concentrations have been
monitored worldwide Ref [2]. The increase in the southern hemisphere follows the northern
increase with a time delay of about 2 years Earlier data are not as reliable. However, they
suggest that the pre-industrial level of atmospheric C02-concentration was about 295 ± 5
ppm by volume. Thus an increase of more than 10% has occurred since the beginning of
industrialization. At the levels discussed here, CO2 is not toxic and one should not confuse it
with the highly toxic carbon monoxide. On the contrary, CO2 increases plant growth as it
provides, together with water, the basic materials needed for photosynthesis. The principal
risk of an increase in atmospheric C02-concentration IS its impact on the radiation balance
of the atmosphere, the so-called "greenhouse" effect. As the reflectivity (albedo) of the
atmosphere is about 29%, the theoretical equilibrium temperature can be calculated as -
19°C, or 34°C less than the observed average of about + 15°C This important difference,
which is necessary for life on earth, is caused by the fact that the atmosphere provides a
window (48% transparent) for the incoming solar radiation but absorbs (20% transparent)
the infrared radiation emitted from the earth's surface. Thus the atmosphere acts as a
blanket to keep the earth warm. This effect is similar to the role of glass roofs play for
greenhouses, after which this effect has been named. It is mainly caused by water vapor and
carbon dioxide. Models simulating this behavior of the atmosphere have been used to
calculate the effects of a change in carbon dioxide concentration All calculations agree quite
well that the temperature increase due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2-concentration will
be between about 2°C and 3°C, depending on assumptions about other parameters (fixed
cloud-top altitude or fixed cloud-top temperature) Figure 2 shows the lower estimate of a
temperature response plotted against CO2-concentrations Ref. [3] It shows contributions of
two absorption bands, with one leveling off at higher concentrations. Up to a doubling of
atmospheric CO2-concentration the response curve Is almost linear
These data refer to temperature changes in the lower troposphere Figure 3 shows that the
temperature change decreases with altitude and even becomes negative beyond a height of
about 10 km Ref. [4]. This relationship has been a point of great confusion in the past as it
had been pointed out Ref. [5] that today's C02-concentration would already absorb 98.5% of
the radiation in the relevant absorption bands. This led to the wrong conclusion that the
CO2-effect could only be minimal However, Figure 3 demonstrates that although this is true
for the total atmosphere, a significant warming occurs in the lower troposphere because for
a doubling of CO2-concentration only half the path length is required for the same
absorption. The data given in Figure 2 are representative for low and middle latitudes. The
more stable conditions in polar and sub-polar regions require that an amplifying factor of
about 3 be considered Ref. [6] for these latitudes.
High Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb and traps more Infrared Radiation
back to earth surface. However, absorption responsible for Carbon Dioxide depends on not
only temperature and concentration of emission gases but also wavelength. Absorption
coefficient affected by carbon dioxide concentration and optical path length responsible for
temperature or global warming across the troposphere layer, which is less than the altitude
of 10 km in the atmosphere, is systematically presented in this work. Solar irradiation within
a short wavelength range can be absorbed, scattered and transmitted by the atmosphere,
and absorbed and reflected by the Earth's surface. Radiation emission in high wavelength
ranges from the Earth's surface at low temperature can be absorbed by atmospheric water
vapor, carbon dioxide and other gases. Unbalance of radiation thus results in the
atmosphere to act as the glass of a greenhouse and increase atmospheric temperature.
Even though global warming strongly affects the life of the human being, the cause of global
warming is still controversial. This work thus proposes a fundamental and systematical
unsteady one-dimensional heat conduction-radiation model together with exponential wide
band model to predict absorption coefficients affected by concentration, temperature,
optical path lengths and radiation correlated parameters in different bands centered at 15,
4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm of carbon dioxide across the troposphere layer. It shows that absorption
coefficient required for calculating heat transfer is strongly affected by carbon dioxide
concentration and optical path length across the troposphere. Relevant values of the latter
should be greater than 5,000 m. Absorption coefficients in the band centered at 4.3 μm
subject to a chosen optical path length of 104 m increase from 0.04 m−1 and 0.165 m−1at the
troposphere to 0.11 m−1 and 0.44 m−1 at the Earth's surface for carbon dioxide
concentrations of 100 and 400 ppm, respectively

Radiation heat transfer due to carbon dioxide plays an important role in the
greenhouse effect, climate change, and global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) from the United Nations concluded that the greenhouse gas emission
(particularly carbon dioxide) due to the burning of fossil fuels carbon dioxide is responsible
for climate change and global warming. The first estimates of how changes in the global
concentration of carbon dioxide might affect mean global surface temperature were made
by Arrhenius . He demonstrated that an increase in the atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide by a factor of two would lead to a heating of the earth's temperature by 5–6
°C. Calendar demonstrated through laboratory experiments that increased carbon dioxide
concentration could have significant global effects on the surface temperature of the earth.
It was also speculated for the first time that humans could have a significant influence on
the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Complicated climate change issues thus
have led to considerable controversy in scientific commentaries and articles, books and
monographs describing the factors of human activities (IPCC, 1996), solar variability cloud
cover and aerosols , biosphere , urbanization and land-use change , volcanism ], magnetism,
etc.

Absorption responsible for greenhouse effect depends on not only temperature and
concentration of emission gases but also wavelength. As illustrated in , greenhouse effect
results from difference in down going solar radiation in red region and up going thermal
radiation in blue region. Solar irradiation in visible range of short wavelength is absorbed,
scattered and transmitted through the atmosphere and absorbed by the Earth's surface. In
view of low temperature, the Earth's surface radiates energy with long wavelength.
Radiation can be absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other emission gases in
different bands or ranges of wavelength. Absorption bands of carbon dioxide are centered
at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm. There exists a window between 8 and 14 μm for absorption bands
of water vapor Infrared absorption and emission of thermal radiation is a consequence of
coupled vibrational and rotational energy transitions. Polyatomic molecules such as carbon
dioxide and water vapor undergo such transitions. Major amounts of oxygen gas and
nitrogen gas are transparent to infrared radiation. This is because they are symmetric
diatomic molecules without permanent dipole moment.

Fig.1 Transmission of shortwave solar irradiation and long wave radiation from the Earth's surface through atmosphere [22]. Greenhouse
effect results from difference in down going solar radiation in red region and up going thermal radiation in blue region. Solar irradiation is
absorbed, scattered and transmitted through the atmosphere and absorbed by the Earth's surface. Irradiation from the Earth's surface can
be absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other emission gases in different bands of wavelength. Major amounts of oxygen gas and
nitrogen gas are transparent to infrared radiation.

CO2 are 1 of the heat trapping gases when its get higher it could be more dangerous
in our environment. While this is true but Nitrous Oxide and Methane are more dangerous
than Carbon Dioxide. Nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and it
also depletes the ozone layer. Since it also has a shorter life span, reducing it could have a
faster, significant impact on global warming. But the largest source of nitrous oxide is
agriculture, particularly fertilized soil and animal waste, and that makes it harder to rein in.
“One could imagine limiting carbon dioxide, less methane, less of lots of things. But nitrous
oxide is so much a food production issue,” Ravishankara said.

Since the 1960s, fertilizer use has shot up globally, helping usher in the “Green
Revolution,” which fed millions around the world. In the U.S. alone, the use of fertilizer has
risen more than 200 percent over the past 60 years, even though the amount of cropland
has stayed relatively constant. At the same time, the number of large industrialized livestock
operations has also gone up, creating more manure “lagoons” and excess manure, which is
often over-applied on cropland. A 2013 report by the United Nations found that since the
pre-industrial era, nitrous oxide emissions from human activities have increased 20 percent.
At the time, the authors wrote that if nothing was done, those emissions were expected to
double by 2050. Despite nitrous oxide’s role depleting the ozone layer, it is not included in
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an international treaty
that aims to restore the ozone layer by phasing out certain substances. Here’s what you
should know about the potent pollutant: So, What Is Nitrous Oxide? Like other greenhouse
gases, nitrous oxide absorbs radiation and traps heat in the atmosphere, where it can live
for an average of 114 years, according to the EPA. That puts it in a sort-of middle ground of
super pollutants. Compared with carbon dioxide, which can live in the atmosphere for
hundreds of years, nitrous oxide is around a relatively short time. But it stays in the
atmosphere longer than other short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon (which exists
in the atmosphere for days) or methane (which is around for 12 years). Nitrous oxide also
poses a second threat: while in the stratosphere, nitrous oxide is exposed to sunlight and
oxygen which converts the gas into nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides can damage the ozone
layer, which humans rely on to prevent most of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation from reaching
earth’s surface. That double-threat effect results in the gas’s potency. One pound of N2O
warms the atmosphere about 300 times the amount that one pound of carbon dioxide does
over a 100 year timescale. Its potency and relatively long life make N2O a dangerous
contributor to climate change. Nitrous oxide also poses a second threat: while in the
stratosphere, nitrous oxide is exposed to sunlight and oxygen which converts the gas into
nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides can damage the ozone layer, which humans rely on to
prevent most of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation from reaching earth’s surface. That double-
threat effect results in the gas’s potency. One pound of N2O warms the atmosphere about
300 times the amount that one pound of carbon dioxide does over a 100 year timescale. Its
potency and relatively long life make N2O a dangerous contributor to climate change.
 About 40 percent of nitrous oxide emissions come from human activities, and of
those, the majority are from the way we use land—particularly agriculture. In the United
States, about 75 percent of all N2O emissions from human activity are attributed to
agriculture. Especially in larger farming operations, livestock manure presents a two-fold
emissions problem: it emits an enormous amount of methane, but it can create nitrous
oxide too. “When the manure doesn’t get access to oxygen, toward the bottom of the pit, it
starts to convert into nitrous oxide,” said Ben Lilliston, Director of Rural Strategies and
Climate Change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “This also happens when
manure gets over applied to crop land.” When farmers add nitrogen fertilizer to their soil to
help stimulate plant growth, only about half gets taken up by the plant, according to Neville
Millar, a senior research coordinator at Michigan State University. The rest can be washed
away in ground-water, or off-gassed as nitrous oxide or other gases.

Agriculture isn’t the only culprit, though. Nitrous oxide is also emitted when fuels are
burned, though how much depends on what type of fuel, and which combustion technology
is used. It’s also generated as a byproduct of the production of chemicals like nitric acid
(used for fertilizer) or adipic acid (used to make nylon and other synthetic products). The
treatment of domestic wastewater can also generate nitrous oxide.
 Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide because it has much
higher heat trapping ability. In the first two decades after its release, Methane is 84 times
more potent than carbon dioxide. We must address both types of emissions if we want to
reduce the impact of climate change. While methane doesn't linger as long in the
atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of
how effectively it absorbs heat. Methane is a powerful greenhouses gas with a 100-year
global warming potential 25 times that of CO2. Measured over a 20-year period, About 60%
of global methane emissions are due to human activities. The main sources of
anthropogenic methane emissions are the oil and gas industries, agriculture (including
fermentation, manure management, and rice cultivation), landfills, wastewater treatment,
and emissions from coal mines. Fossil fuel production, distribution and use are estimated to
emit 110 million tons of methane annually. Methane is the primary component of natural
gas, with some emitted to the atmosphere during its production, processing, storage,
transmission, distribution, and use. It is estimated that around 3% of total worldwide
natural gas production is lost annually to venting, leakage, and flaring, resulting in
substantial economic and environmental costs.

Coal is another important source of methane emissions. Coal mining related

activities (extraction, crushing, distribution, etc.) release some of the methane trapped
around and within the rock. Methane is emitted from active underground and surface mines
as well as from abandoned mines and undeveloped coal seams. The geological formation of
oil can also create large methane deposits that get released during drilling and extraction.
The production, refinement, transportation and storage of oil are all sources of methane
emissions, as is incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. No combustion process is perfectly
efficient, so when fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, heat, or power vehicles these
all contribute as sources of methane emissions.

On a global scale, methane emissions from oil and natural gas systems account for
1,680 MtCO2e. The estimates are considered to be uncertain and are thought to be low.
Based on the best currently available data, around 3.6 trillion cubic feet (TCF) (or 102 billion
cubic meters (bcm)) of natural gas escaped into the atmosphere in 2012 from global oil and
gas operations. This wasted gas translates into roughly U.S. $30 billion of lost revenue at
average 2012 delivered prices, and represents about 3% of global natural gas production.
Emissions are expected to grow under a central growth scenario by 23% between 2012 and
2030. Regarding the global reduction potential by 2030, it is estimated that emissions could
be reduced by 26% using existing technology (equal to 1,219 MtCO2e).

Despite methane’s short residence time, the fact that it has a much higher warming
potential than CO2 and that its atmospheric volumes are continuously replenished make
effective methane management a potentially important element in countries’ climate
change mitigation strategies. As of today, however, there is neither a common technological
approach to monitoring and recording methane emissions, nor a standard method for
reporting them.

There are naturally occurring methane sources but for this analysis, it’s most
relevant and critical to talk about the emissions produced from human activity. We will
discuss them in terms of warming potential rather than mass or volume because while
human activities release less methane than carbon into the atmosphere, methane is many
times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat, meaning that emissions volumes do not need
to be nearly as high to have serious climate consequences. Global warming potentials,
commonly referred to as GWP, were established to allow comparisons of greenhouse gas
impacts. The global warming potential of a gas is a measure of how much energy (heat) the
gas will absorb in the atmosphere over a given time period compared to how much heat the
same amount of CO2 would absorb. The larger the GWP, the more a greenhouse gas will
warm the Earth compared to CO2. Since carbon dioxide is the baseline to which other gases
are compared, it has GWP of one. If methane gas has a GWP of 87, it means one ton of
methane produces the same average warming as 87 tons of CO2. Different gases persist in
the atmosphere for different lengths of time, so the comparison must also be based on a
time frame. While CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, methane is more
quickly removed from the atmosphere by natural processes. As a result of oxidization and a
few other processes that remove much smaller amounts of methane from the atmosphere,
methane stays in the atmosphere for, on average, about 12 years. One helpful way to think
about atmospheric life is this: if a proposal for a fracked gas project has an expected life
span of 60 years, the plant’s methane emissions would live in the atmosphere for
approximately 72 years. Atmospheric processes would convert these emissions to carbon
dioxide on a rolling basis.

What has scientists concerned now is that over the past 250 years, humans have
been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-
increasing rate, mostly by burning fossil fuels, but also from cutting down carbon-absorbing
forests. Since the Industrial Revolution began in about 1750, carbon dioxide levels have
increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent.
 First, High Concentration of CO2 produce positive effects on greater plant growth.
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have caused increasing photosynthetic rates,
biomass growth, and seed yield for all of the globally important C3 food and feed crops
(Acock and Allen, 1985; Enoch and Kimball, 1986; Warrick et al., 1986; Allen, 1990). Some
plants, such as cucumber, cabbage, and perhaps tomato, have shown a tendency to first
increase leaf photosynthetic rates in response to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations,
and then to decrease photosynthetic rates after several days. This behavior is called "end-
product inhibition of photosynthesis," and it is caused by the failure of translocation of
photo assimilates to keep up with photosynthetic rates (Guinn and Mauney, 1980). A few
experiments have been conducted with carbon dioxide concentration maintained across a
range of 160 to 990 ppm. A nonlinear hyperbolic model was used to fit soybean
photosynthetic rate data to carbon dioxide concentration (Allen et al., 1987).
Photosynthetic rates at the various carbon dioxide concentrations were divided by the
photosynthetic rate at a carbon dioxide concentration of 330 ppm to normalize the data to a
common condition. Data sets of biomass yield and seed yield from four locations over three
years were also fit to the model (Allen et al., 1987). Relative yields with respect to yields at
330 to 340 ppm were used.

As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing

the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of stored chemical energy for the plant,
but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic molecules that make up a plants’
structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen assimilated into organic molecules by
photosynthesis make up ~96% of the total dry mass of a typical plant (Marschner 1995).
Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional metabolism of plants, and
increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have profound effects on plant
growth and many aspects of plant physiology. Our knowledge of plant responses to future
CO2 concentrations rests on the results of experiments that have experimentally increased
CO2 and then compared the performance of the experimental plants with those grown
under current ambient CO2 conditions. Such experiments have been performed in a wide
variety of settings, including greenhouses and chambers of a variety of sizes and designs.
However plants grown in chambers may not experience the effects of increasing CO2 the
same way as plants growing in more natural settings. For this reason, techniques of Free-Air
Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) have been developed that allow natural or agricultural
ecosystems to be fumigated with elevated concentrations of CO2 in the field without use of
chambers As these experiments are the most naturalistic, they should provide the best
indication of the responses of plants to increased CO2 under the real-world conditions of
the future. This article therefore focuses on data from FACE experiments wherever these
are available. Whenever possible, to ensure the generality of conclusions, reference is made
to analyses that have incorporated data from multiple experiments independently
conducted at various research facilities. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up
atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of
stored chemical energy for the plant, but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic
molecules that make up a plants’ structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen
assimilated into organic molecules by photosynthesis make up 96% of the total dry mass of
a typical plant (Marschner 1995). Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional
metabolism of plants, and increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have
profound effects on plant growth and many aspects of plant physiology. Our knowledge of
plant responses to future CO2 concentrations rests on the results of experiments that have
experimentally increased CO2 and then compared the performance of the experimental
plants with those grown under current ambient CO2 conditions. Such experiments have
been performed in a wide variety of settings, including greenhouses and chambers of a
variety of sizes and designs. However plants grown in chambers may not experience the
effects of increasing CO2 the same way as plants growing in more natural settings. For this
reason, techniques of Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) have been developed that
allow natural or agricultural ecosystems to be fumigated with elevated concentrations of
CO2 in the field without use of chambers. As these experiments are the most naturalistic,
they should provide the best indication of the responses of plants to increased CO2 under
the real-world conditions of the future. This article therefore focuses on data from FACE
experiments wherever these are available. Whenever possible, to ensure the generality of
conclusions, reference is made to analyses that have incorporated data from multiple
experiments independently conducted at various research facilities.

One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an

increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE
experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated
CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of
40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in
regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the
external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis,
but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the
degree of stomata opening (related to a measure known as stomata conductance) as a
compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of
water loss. As CO2 concentrations increase, plants can maintain high photosynthetic rates
with relatively low stomata conductance. Across a variety of FACE experiments, growth
under elevated CO2 decreases stomata conductance of water by an average of 22%
(Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). This would be expected to decrease overall plant water use,
although the magnitude of the overall effect of CO2 will depend on how it affects other
determinants of plant water use, such as plant size, morphology, and leaf temperature.
Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under
elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire
ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated
CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009). Since photosynthesis and stomata behavior are central to plant
carbon and water metabolism, growth of plants under elevated CO2 leads to a large variety
of secondary effects on plant physiology. The availability of additional photosynthesis
enables most plants to grow faster under elevated CO2, with dry matter production in FACE
experiments being increased on average by 17% for the aboveground, and more than 30%
for the belowground, portions of plants (Ainsworth & Long 2005; de Graaff et al. 2006). This
increased growth is also reflected in the harvestable yield of crops, with wheat, rice and
soybean all showing increases in yield of 12–14% under elevated CO2 in FACE experiments
(Ainsworth 2008; Long et al. 2006). Elevated CO2 also leads to changes in the chemical
composition of plant tissues. Due to increased photosynthetic activity, leaf nonstructural
carbohydrates (sugars and starches) per unit leaf area increase on average by 30–40% under
FACE elevated CO2 (Ainsworth 2008; Ainsworth & Long 2005). Leaf nitrogen concentrations
in plant tissues typically decrease in FACE under elevated CO2, with nitrogen per unit leaf
mass decreasing on average by 13% (Ainsworth & Long 2005). This decrease in tissue
nitrogen is likely due to several factors: dilution of nitrogen from increased carbohydrate
concentrations; decreased uptake of minerals from the soil, as stomata conductance
decreases and plants take up less water (Taub & Wang 2008); and decreases in the rate of
assimilation of nitrate into organic compounds (Bloom et al. 2010).

Another benefit of the increase of the level of CO2 has profound effects on the yield
of production. Elevated atmospheric CO2 (eCO2) enhances the yield of vegetables and could
also affect their nutritional quality. We conducted a meta-analysis using 57 articles
consisting of 1,015 observations and found that eCO2 increased the concentrations of
fructose, glucose, total soluble sugar, total antioxidant capacity, total phenols, total
flavonoids, ascorbic acid, and calcium in the edible part of vegetables by 14.2%, 13.2%,
17.5%, 59.0%, 8.9%, 45.5%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, respectively, but decreased the concentrations
of protein, nitrate, magnesium, iron, and zinc by 9.5%, 18.0%, 9.2%, 16.0%, and 9.4%. The
concentrations of titratable acidity, total chlorophyll, carotenoids, lycopene, anthocyanins,
phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, copper, and manganese were not affected by eCO2.
Furthermore, we propose several approaches to improving vegetable quality based on the
interaction of eCO2 with various factors, including species, cultivars, CO2 levels, growth
stages, light, O3 stress, nutrient, and salinity. Finally, we present a summary of the eCO2
impact on the quality of three widely cultivated crops, namely, lettuce, tomato, and potato.

Generally, eCO2 (700–1000 μmol mol-1) can promote the yield of vegetables (Gruda
and Tanny, 2014). The sources of CO2 have changed from traditional straw bales and
organic soils to relatively pure CO2 from industrial waste or CO2 generators (Gruda, 2005).
Elevated CO2 has frequently been demonstrated to increase the yield of various crops,
including vegetables (Kimball, 1983; Long et al., 2004). Elevated CO2 (from 355 to 800–900
μmol mol-1) increased the yield of lettuce, carrot, and parsley by 18%, 19%, and 17%,
respectively (Mortensen, 1994). Optimizing other environmental factors with eCO2 further
increased plant productivity and yield (Kirschbaum, 2011). Elevated CO2 (900 μmol mol-1)
with additional light (ambient + 100 μmol m-2 s-1 photosynthetically active radiation or
PAR) increased the early yield of tomato and pepper by 15% and 11%, respectively (Fierro et
al., 1994). Elevated CO2 (600–700 μmol mol-1) increased the average root dry mass of sugar
beet by 26% in high N availability (10 mM NO3-) and by 12% in 1 mM NO3- (Demmers-Derks
et al., 1998). More examples of yield benefits for other vegetable crops are reviewed by
Gruda (2005). However, there is less information on the effect of CO2 concentration on the
nutritional quality of vegetables (Gruda, 2005; Moretti et al., 2010). The effect of eCO2 on
vegetable quality has been briefly reviewed (Idso and Idso, 2001; Gruda, 2005; Moretti et
al., 2010; Bisbis et al., 2018). However, these reviews mainly focus on limited parameters of
quality affected by various environmental factors. A comprehensive review of recent studies
explaining and targeting the key role of the effect of eCO2 on vegetable quality is lacking. To
address this knowledge gap, we conducted a meta-analysis on the eCO2 effect and its
interaction with factors besides eCO2 on the quality of vegetables, and more specifically of
three widely cultivated vegetables: lettuce, tomato, and potato.

Ever since the 1970s plant and crop scientists have undertaken attempts to quantify
the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] concentrations on the development of
plants (Fleisher et al., 2011). Since then basically two mechanisms have emerged that might
have critical implications for crop yields if [CO2] concentrations are changed. One is an
elevated photosynthesis rate, resulting in more energy and thus a quicker development of
the plant. In a stricter sense this is often the effect meant when implicating a [CO2]
fertilization effect. C3-plants like wheat, rice or barley interact directly with [CO2] for their
photosynthesis and are thus more susceptible to concentration changes in the ambient air.
It is commonly expected that these plants will increasingly benefit from elevated
photosynthesis rates up to around 1000 ppm [CO2], more than twice the concentration of
today's atmosphere. C4 plants like maize, sorghum or sugarcane are however,
comparatively independent of changes in [CO2]. Their photosynthesis rate does increase
similar to C3-plants toward today's [CO2] concentration, then, however, starts to quickly
level out around 400 ppm (Ehleringer and Cerling, 2002; Chmielewski, 2007; Lambers et al.,
2008). On the other hand an increase in [CO2] reduces the amount of water needed to
produce an equivalent amount of biomass. This improvement in water use efficiency (WUE)
is due to a closing of the stomata to regulate the flux of [CO2] molecules and affects both
C3- and C4-plants alike. More or less as a byproduct, these more narrow stomata restrict
the amount of H2O molecules that are transpired by the plant (Steffen and Canadell, 2005;
Lambers et al., 2008). Some discrepancies about the quantity of both effects arose when
FACE (Free-Air-CO2 Enrichment) studies emerged during the 1990s, as prior knowledge on
[CO2] fertilization effects was based entirely on experiments in growing chambers. FACE
experiments are situated in open air, within the natural atmosphere. [CO2] is emitted
through tubes around the plant samples and regulated to the desired level (Kimball et al.,
2002; Kimball, 2011). Tests in secluded SPAR (Soil-Plant-Atmosphere-Research) chambers
produce results that mostly surpassed those in FACE experiments under near natural
conditions. The advantage of such chamber tests is an extensive control of all parameters
within the chamber (Fleisher et al., 2011). The diverging results in biomass yields, grain
yields or photosynthesis rate, however, suggest that not all natural processes are
reproduced satisfactorily within these secluded environments. As an example, tests with
some C3-plants did show an increase in biomass and grain yields by 17% and 13%,
respectively. This was done in FACE tests at 25°C and 550 ppm [CO2]. These yields are only
about half of those from comparable chamber tests. C4-plants did not show any increase at
all (Long et al., 2006). However, those studies are generally hard to compare. FACE studies,
done since 1989, are still relatively rare in comparison to chamber tests, as they require
considerably more resources to conduct. Those studies available often use different
conditions, most importantly different [CO2] concentrations. The matter becomes even
more complex when the plant's supply of nutritional elements (e.g. N), water supply and
temperature as well as their interaction are considered, as they have a major impact on the
final result. If, for example, the water availability is accounted for, even C4-plants are then
affected by an elevated [CO2], as they do not react under normal or optimal conditions to
more [CO2] but do so if their water supply is limited (Kimball, 2011). Some authors (Morgan
et al., 2004) even suggest that the indirect water saving aspect of elevated [CO2] levels
might outperform the direct effect of increased photosynthesis rates, especially under
increasingly dry conditions due to climatic changes. Apparently, this effect can be so strong
that even under conditions of increasing summer drought stress, when one would normally
expect declining yields, some Grasslands still gained in yields due to a rise in [CO2] (Taube
and Herrmann, 2009). To date, no comprehensive approach exists that would represent all
related aspects and interactions within a single modeling environment. In any case the
uncertainties concerning crop yields seem to be relatively large today. As many models use
the results from SPAR and similar experiments to quantify the role of [CO2] in plant growth,
it might be the case that studies conducted using these models over-estimate future yields.
It is further suggested that the variability in yields due to [CO2] responses is almost as large
as those caused by climate interactions (McGrath and Lobell, 2013). While global studies on
crop yields might be relatively robust in regard to this variability, it might have a larger
impact at regional scales. However, regional disparities in the context of climate and crops
are not well understood and studies concerning this topic are relatively sparse today
(Rosenthal and Tomeo, 2013). A regional study in this regard was done in Germany by
Huang et al. (2012) at two catchments for winter wheat. Their results suggested that a
decrease in yields by the mid-twenty-first century of 6–10% due to a negative change in
water availability, reverses into an increase of 9–14% when [CO2] fertilization effects are
included. A similar study by Kersebaum and Nendel (2014), also for winter wheat and
varying sites in Germany, using the same climate model and scenario as the presented
study, 0.9 to 6.0% yield increases if the [CO2] effect was included. Apart from this, several
articles exist that deal with [CO2] and crop yields on different scales and approaches (Ziska
and Bunce, 2007; Högy and Fangmeier, 2008; Soussana et al., 2010; Vanuytrecht et al.,
2011; Weigel and Manderscheid, 2012; Tausz et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013).

Lastly, Northern Arizona University’s experimental research investigated the effect of

elevated atmospheric CO2 on above-ground biomass. The effect of elevated atmospheric
CO2 concentration on the aboveground biomass of three oak species, Quercus myrtifolia, Q.
geminata, and Q. chapmanii, was estimated nondestructively using allometric relationships
between stem diameter and aboveground biomass after four years of experimental
treatment in a naturally fire-regenerated scrub-oak ecosystem. After burning a stand of
scrub-oak vegetation, re-growing plants were exposed to either current ambient (379 µL L−1
CO2) or elevated (704 µL L−1 CO2) Ca in 16 open-top chambers over a four-year period, and
measurements of stem diameter were carried out annually on all oak shoots within each
chamber. Elevated Ca significantly increased aboveground biomass, expressed either per
unit ground area or per shoot; elevated Ca had no effect on shoot density. The relative
effect of elevated Ca on aboveground biomass increased each year of the study from 44%
(May 96–Jan 97), to 55% (Jan 97–Jan 98), 66% (Jan 98–Jan 99), and 75% (Jan 99–Jan 00). The
effect of elevated Ca was species specific: elevated Ca significantly increased aboveground
biomass of the dominant species, Q. myrtifolia, and tended to increase aboveground
biomass of Q. chapmanii, but had no effect on aboveground biomass of the subdominant,
Q. geminata. These results show that rising atmospheric CO2 has the potential to stimulate
aboveground biomass production in ecosystems dominated by woody species, and that
species-specific growth responses could, in the long term, alter the composition of the
scrub-oak community.

Although there are many negative effects of global warming, it’s no doubt that it has
advantages too. Global warming is real and despite its negative criticisms exclaimed by
scientists, it does bring benefits to man and the environment; increase in photosynthetic
rate of plants, the yield in crop production and the above-ground biomass. High
Concentration of CO2 produce positive effects on greater plant growth. High Concentration
of CO2 produces positive effects on greater plant growth. It will have a big impact on the
agricultural sector because the farmers themselves will benefit from the good effect of the
high concentration of CO2 in our environment because it will increase and accelerate the
growth of their vegetable crops which also doubles the nutrients it contains. due to the
higher concentration of CO2, It also positively affects the yield in crop production as i said a
while ago, farmers can harvest more because of the higher concentration of CO2 which has
actually been proven by experts so we don’t need to worry and all, because of its good
effect the chances of having a famine in the world will decrease because there will be
enough supply and our farmers will also be able to save money because they no longer have
to buy fertilizer for their plants because it seems that high concentrations of CO2 for crops
are becoming a natural fertilizer and rising atmospheric CO2 has the potential to stimulate
aboveground biomass production in ecosystems dominated by woody species which will be
good for our forests because they grow faster at the normal height of the trees so even if
there is a forest fire, that part of that forest can recover faster.

Let's change our view that we are always focused on the bad effects of global
warming let's try to look at its positive effects especially in our mother earth because
without them especially carbon dioxide, no plant can survive that we need to survive, it
serves to repel the ultra violet rays directly from the sun, it helps the large agricultural
sector as the world population grows. Let us open our eyes not to be blinded by what we
have known since we were children. Listen, study and find out the positive effects of it let's
not be biased and one sided because we will also reap the positive effects of elevated CO2
on our environment.

I highly recommend that. A further more study about the benefits of global warming
to the environmental sector of the society. Because we do not know what are the other
benefits of increasing the concentration of Carbon dioxide in our environment. Because only
a few of its positive effects have been discovered and hopefully more will be discovered to
completely change people's perceptions about global warming Conduct an interview to the
agricultural man labor to discuss the said argument based on different perspective of
selected respondents. It is very important to pay attention to it because it is necessary to
clarify everything regarding the positive effect of high concentration of CO2 in crops. Pass an
order to make a program with regards to the general benefits of global warming to different
sectors of both agricultural and industrial sectors. This is the most important thing for
everyone to be especially aware of our agricultural workers because they will think that the
view that global warming will not bring anything wrong, and through this the government
can help in these matters that can have a campaign about it to expand the knowledge of the
people here. Adaptation, Let the public know that we all need to adapt to global warming.
Because in our time it is impossible for us to control global warming, it is better for us to
adapt to be better prepared for what may happen in the future as we take advantage of its
positive effects on us.

This paper was carried out in order to suggest scientific and phase-by-phase
counterstrategies to prevent against climate change through the diagnosis of climate
change phenomena and in-depth analysis of climate change impacts on the agricultural
sector. The countermeasures for the agricultural sector against climate change have mostly
focused on greenhouse gas mitigation. However, more interest and policy support should be
directed to adaptation measures in consideration of the inevitability of global warming and
the characteristics of climate-dependent agriculture. In particular, it is necessary to
understand that the countermeasures for the agricultural sector against climate change are
to minimize the risks of climate change and utilize it as an opportunity. For this, proper
education and training programs for agriculture workers, public officials and the personnel
from the related agencies should be developed and put into practice so that they can
properly cope with climate change. It is also urgent to expand the adaptation measures of
the agricultural sector that have been limited to research and development, to more active
policy programs including popularization of technology and adaptation manuals to
agriculture workers and proper incentive programs. The improvement of agricultural
production infrastructure has focused on the farmlands for rice farming to become self-
sufficient in food production, such as securing water resources in preparation against
drought, preventing floods, and arranging for mechanized farming. Now, more scientific
measures in water and facility management should be formulated and implemented in
preparation against unusual weather including localized torrential rain and typhoon. In
ensuring the effective implementation of the agricultural sector’s adaptation strategies, it is
necessary to divide roles properly between the concerned bodies such as the government,
farmers, researchers, and other related institutions and to build up the integrated
management system for comprehensive planning and implementation for those adaptation
strategies.
 REFERENCES

Becks PJ, Bambrick HJ (2005) Is the global rise of asthma an early impact of anthropogenic
climate change? Envir Health Pers 113: 915–919

Caldeira K et al. (2005) Ocean storage. In IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage, B Metz, O Davidson, H de Coninck, M Loos, L Meyer (eds), pp 278–317.
Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Pappas, S. (2020, February 20). What is global warming? Livescience.Com.

https://www.livescience.com/37003-global-warming.html

Thompson, M. (2017). Effects of Elevated Carbon Dioxide on Photosynthesis and Carbon

Partitioning: A Perspective on Root Sugar Sensing and Hormonal Crosstalk. Frontiers.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.00578/full#B80

Zheng, Y., Li, F., Hao, L., Shedayi, A. A., Guo, L., Ma, C., Huang, B., & Xu, M. (2018, February
5). The optimal CO 2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species. BMC
Plant Biology. https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-
3

Nitrous oxide and methane. (2019, January 31).Umwealthbundesamt.

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/soil-agriculture/ecological-impact-of-
farming/nitrous-oxide-methane

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer. (2018,

October 1). PubMed Central (PMC).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/

Shankman, S. (2020, December 7). What Is Nitrous Oxide and Why Is It a Climate Threat?
Inside Climate News. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11092019/nitrous-oxide-climate-
pollutant-explainer-greenhouse-gas-agriculture-livestock/
Buchanan, M. (2020, March 11). Why methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide. ThePrint. https://theprint.in/environment/why-methane-is-a-far-more-
dangerous-greenhouse-gas-than-carbon-dioxide/378858/

Powell, T. (2019, December 9). Methane’s 20- and 100-Year Climate Effect Is Like ‘CO2 on
Steroids.’ Sightline Institute. https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/methane-climate-
change-co2-on-steroids/

Rayner, P. (2017, September 26). Excuse me! The problem with methane.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/methane

Degener, J. F. (2015). Atmospheric CO2 fertilization effects on biomass yields of 10 crops in

northern Germany. Frontiers
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00048/full

Peart, R. M., J. W. Jones, R. B. Curry, K. J. Boote, and L. H. Allen, Jr. 1989. Impact of climate
change on crop yield in the Southeastern USA: a simulation study. Appendix C (Agriculture),
Vol. 1, Chapter 2 in J. B. Smith and D. A. Tirpak, eds., The Potential Effects of Global Climate
Change on the United States. Report EPA-230-05-89-053. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Penning de Vries, F. W. T., D. M. Jansen, H. F. M. ten Berge, and A. Bakema. 1989.

Simulation of Ecophysiological Processes of Growth in Several Annual Crops. Wageningen,
Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publication and Documentation (Pudoc).

Revelle, R., and P. W. Waggoner. 1983. Effects of a carbon dioxide induced climatic change
on water supplies in the Western United States. Pp. 419-432 in Changing Climate: Report of
the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Ritchie, J. T., B. D. Baer, and T. Y. Chou. 1989. Effect of global climate change on agriculture:
Great Lakes region. Appendix C (Agriculture), Vol. 1, Chapter 1 in J. B. Smith and D. A. Tirpak,
eds., The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Report EPA-230-
05-89-053. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Rosenberg, N. J., B. A. Kimball, P. Martin, and C. F. Cooper. 1990. From climate and CO2
enrichment to evapotranspiration. Pp. 151-175 in P. E. Waggoner, ed., Climate Changes and
U.S. Water Resources. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Rosenzweig, C. 1989. Potential effects of climate change on agricultural production in the

Great Plains: a simulation study. Appendix C (Agriculture), Vol. 1, Chapter 3 in J. B. Smith and