I don't know how you would model that since you would need to also find a way to determine what happens to cars and planes. I think the graphene battery would better reduce emissions than nuclear but I'm turbo pro nuclear too so... I would imagine there would be an elastic phase where we would experience a cooling which would held freeze much of the carbon monoxide in the ice and then it would level out by warming a little.
In a perfect world we would have graphene circuits, graphene batteries, graphene solar panels, graphene filters and miniature nuclear reactors to power individual buildings. Think mall, not home. Apartment complex. That kind of thing. Maybe on a per block radius.

>>7946455
It wouldn't expunge CO2 from the atmosphere, nor would it place oxygen, which we need, into the atmosphere.

Due to the density differences CO2 stays under while Oxygen floats away.

Anyway, take the world's amount of electricity prouduced by CO2 emitting production systems and multiply that by .9. There's how much it will've changed.

>>7946546
Sorry, by .1*

I think it is interesting that humans think we can hold the chains of the universe. What i mean by this, is that it is generally accepted that local and world climate are not static and have shifted between really fucking cold and satans balls hot.

If these things happened in the past, without human influence, then where did this trend of humans losing their mind when climate continues to vary between the axioms? It is a physical impossibility to keep the earth in this present condition/qualitative state.

Im not saying terraforming will never be possible or is right or wrong. I am saying that as much as we delude ourselves.. We are not god. There isnt a single occurrence of infinity anywhere. All things come and go.

So with all this... Who fucking pissed in our cheerios and set off this irrational, omg our greenhouse gases! But the poles might melt and create higher sea levels! The ocean currents will shift and reform and totally fuck everything up! All of those things will continue to occur until the earth dies.

Idk. Its a social construct. And if we're going to tout about with life ending opinions... Have them be at least directed in the right manner. Our shit is about to be fucked up. What can we do? Not dont eat beef, cars are from satan, worlds gonna end maaaan nonsense.

>>7946628
>If these things happened in the past, without human influence, then where did this trend of humans losing their mind when climate continues to vary between the axioms?

Why would CO2 introduced by human means interact with infrared radiation any differently than it has when it has been introduced by natural means in the past?

>It is a physical impossibility to keep the earth in this present condition/qualitative state.

That doesn't mean we should go ahead and fuck it up sooner. We should prolong stable climates and ecosystems.

>It's a social construct.

CO2 has physical properties that we can determine through experiment. If you think verifiable facts are social constructs, I think you might feel right at home at Tumblr.

>>7946647
Im not dismissing global warming or widespread climate change. Humans have without a doubt changed the natural timeline.
I would say the co2 is molecularly the same and interacts the same as years in the past. There are also natural, ie non sentient caused, phenomenon that cause atmospheric change. Meteor strike. Volcanic activity. Rotting bio matter.
Our biomes are stable and general self sufficient but humans have a terrible habit of fucking everything up and then wondering what happened!? We know we're coming to a breaking point but the general populace isnt willing to make a personal change. Plus we still have developing countries that arent held to clean and modern practices. And we generally dont take into account of gases released by livestock.
What i meant by social construct was we put a label on a natural cycle. It happens with or without us. We just projected ourselves into it. Rightfully so, but none the less.

>>7946731
Then, I don't see the problem.

We shouldn't exacerbate what factors we have control over.

I don't think CO2 emissions are the only case where we fuck things up and I also think we must hold developing countries like China accountable for their emissions through political action.

>>7946455
>How will climate change projections change
Not at all. The projections are fictional so you might as well ask how ITER affects Harry Potter.

>>7946455
you can't model it since climatology is not a science and there is no model that gives accurate predictions in the future yet.

>>7946752
You are confusing climate with weather. The long term trends of climate are quite easily predicted, just as one might predict accurately that, although day to day temperature is somewhat erratic, it will be much hotter than now in a few months time, come summer.

>>7946757
>The long term trends of climate are quite easily predicted
Given how wrong the predictions have been the people responsible for them have to be extraordinary incompetent.

>>7946763
What predictions have been inaccurate?

>>7946455
Implying climate change was/is caused by human activity.

>>7946767
What makes CO2 produced by human activity any different from CO2 produced by natural processes?

>>7946455
Last time i looked we didn't have anywhere near enough fissile resources for this to be a viable proposition. Maybe 10 years worth at such a rate of consumption.
Even if we did, it would be a pretty shitty act to leave a legacy of having to safely store countless tons of waste product for tens of thousands of years to future generations.

>>7946771
spent fuel can be reprocessed to reuse left over fissile material.

This can be done, but currently is not, because newly refined fuel is cheaper.

>>7946783
True but doesn't make it any more viable. It's not a perpetual motion machine. You can't just keep on re-using the same material and extracting energy from it forever.

>>7946802
I'm not claiming it will go on forever, but it expands its lifetime well beyond 10 years.

It is dishonest to portray me as claiming that it is an indefinite source of energy.

>>7946771
wanted to call bullshit, but it works out with discovered ore

the world uses 20900 TWh/year
10 tons of natural uranium go into producing a ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 0.4 TWh of electricity.
Thus we need 50 000 tons of LEU, thats 500 000 to mine
5 500 000 tons of ore has been discovered, so it will only last 11 years


BUT

seawater contains 4 500 000 000 tons, enough for 9000 years.

PLUS

Breeder reactors would use only 1% this amount, extending it to 900 000 years at current electricity usage.

>>7946455
>How do I model that?
Being a new age climate doom priest is a tight job market. You might want to apprentice as a climate change denier Inquisitor first, then take some computer programming courses, try and get a job at the UN. Might help if you know Kimbakimoon or Al Gore personally.