Maybe I shouldn't wait for the CT anymore.

[WildhavenMI]

@WildhavenMI What I think I hear is your want your cool thing now (emotion) and some external event helps you to make the story (rational).

You have a need, you have a solution already. It seems you want to solve the problem in a way that improves the environment. You can do that with the Y so it appears you I trying to decide between cool / longer (CT) and functional / now (Y). As far as environment goes, the answer is no purchase, unfortunate but true.

I'm not a truck guy and due to a variety of circumstances, I don't even need a vehicle let alone a CyberTruck. I am going to make it work. Is any new car purchase beneficial to the environment, nope. Am I partly rationalizing that I'll need a new vehicle because my daughter will be a driver soon, yep. Is it an actual need, nope.

Shifting into unsolicited opinion mode, sorry.
Hold onto the reservation, don't buy any vehicle until you need to. I'll do the same though admittedly only because the one I want isn't here yet.

This is a valid point. I may be construing a need based on my emotional response to the situation. Would not be the first time that I have convinced myself something is necessary when it is really strictly emotionally driven.

Advertisement

 

[Crissa]

That’s a scientifically unfounded statement.

No.

Weather usually has no direct connection.

However, the entire weather pattern we had last week affected more than Texas. It was a loop of the jet stream that weakened and dipped much lower than normal. In a pattern that was world wide.

It wasn't just 'weather'.

It was a global occurance.

-Crissa

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

No.

Weather usually has no direct connection.

However, the entire weather pattern we had last week affected more than Texas. It was a loop of the jet stream that weakened and dipped much lower than normal. In a pattern that was world wide.

It wasn't just 'weather'.

It was a global occurance.

-Crissa

Sure. But there is nothing to suggest it was caused by global warming. The jet stream has always freaked out.

 

[Crissa]

Sure. But there is nothing to suggest it was caused by global warming. The jet stream has always freaked out.

No.

The jet stream having loops that dip is normal.

What isn't normal is for these loops to be repeated across the globe. The storm that hit Texas extended up over the pole to Moscow. The same reason they'll be 70F this week is the same weather event, drawing up warmer than normal air from the south as the loop finally breaks into its normal progression pattern.

This isn't some single derecho which is unusual but impossible to link. A derecho might be five, ten, fifty, a hundred miles. A hurricane several hundred miles. This was thousands and thousands of miles across.

This is a global phenomena. A pattern that only exists because the entire globe has more heat energy.

No, it's not unusual - in the broad sense of history - for there to be blizzards in Texas. What's unusual is that it wasn't just in Texas.

-Crissa

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

No.

The jet stream having loops that dip is normal.

What isn't normal is for these loops to be repeated across the globe. The storm that hit Texas extended up over the pole to Moscow. The same reason they'll be 70F this week is the same weather event, drawing up warmer than normal air from the south as the loop finally breaks into its normal progression pattern.

This isn't some single derecho which is unusual but impossible to link. A derecho might be five, ten, fifty, a hundred. A hurricane several hundred miles. This was thousands and thousands of miles across.

This is a global phenomena. A pattern that only exists because the entire globe has more heat energy.

No, it's not unusual - in the broad sense of history - for there to be blizzards in Texas. What's unusual is that it wasn't just in Texas.

-Crissa

So you’re saying this never happened before?

 

[Crissa]

So you’re saying this never happened before?

No, I'm saying the pattern is very unusual and not indicative of local weather but an entire global pattern of warm seas due to global warming.

I can't say if it's never happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was normal about 10, 15 thousand years ago.

I wouldn't have wanted to live then, either.

-Crissa

 

[kev12345]

i'd wait for the Cybertruck. if you found yourself in a Texas situation you could power your home furnace fan with your truck bed outlet instead of freezing to death with your model y sitting in the garage.

 

[Frankenblob]

Sure. But there is nothing to suggest it was caused by global warming. The jet stream has always freaked out.

A simple look over the last 130 years will show the global FEAR MONGERING ( ice age, global warming, global cooling, global warming, ozone "hole"...)

Now I do not dispute that supertankers, big boats, yachts... and other diesel engines are high polluters of killer sulpher dioxide emissions.

But going after "cow farts" - what Elon wants to do - as a contributor to the cult of "global warming" is....

Buy what ya want, but remember granny-nanny-state will "get you". LOL.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

A simple look over the last 130 years will show the global FEAR MONGERING ( ice age, global warming, global cooling, global warming, ozone "hole"...)

Now I do not dispute that supertankers, big boats, yachts... and other diesel engines are high polluters of killer sulpher dioxide emissions.

But going after "cow farts" - what Elon wants to do - as a contributor to the cult of "global warming" is....

Buy what ya want, but remember granny-nanny-state will "get you". LOL.

Elon isn't after cow farts. Meat GHG's is another silly pseudo-science, and as Elon said on the issue, the fundamental problem is digging up buried hydrocarbons and putting them in the air again. I would add deforestation as well, but cows are fundamentally "renewable" in that they are only producing carbon they ate from plants that stored it. Like burning wood. It's not changing the climate as long as you re-plant was was taken down.

I think it's very likely that human produced GHG's would alter our atmosphere and change climate. We have extracted a LOT of hydrocarbons over the last 100 years, and dramatically reduced forest cover. We also have a lot more people - though less animals. That's going to impact things. It just doesn't follow science to point to a snow storm or a hot day or a drought or a forest fire and say "Aha! Climate Change!" That's not how it works.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

No, I'm saying the pattern is very unusual and not indicative of local weather but an entire global pattern of warm seas due to global warming.

I can't say if it's never happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was normal about 10, 15 thousand years ago.

I wouldn't have wanted to live then, either.

-Crissa

You don't need to go back 10 thousand years. Global temperature has fluctuated significantly in the last 2000. The world is about a degree warmer than it's recent low 200 years ago, but only about .2 degree warmer than it was around 1000 years ago. But regardless, there is nothing to suggest that a sudden abnormality - even globally - is the result of slightly higher global temperatures. Weather is almost always global. Hurricanes in Florida always bring some amazing weather to Nova Scotia and eventually to the UK. It's how it works. Texas had a record low in Feb 1933. Moscow had a record high in Feb 1929. You can be sure these events happened as part of a global situation on those days, unless some evil scientist was testing a weather changing device that we don't know about. There will always be strange weather, always has been.

The world is almost certainly getting warmer. It is almost certainly because of humans. It will almost certainly continue, and there will be some significant effects from that. A hot/cold jet stream ripple on a couple days in Feb 2021 is not one of them.

 

[Crissa]

But going after "cow farts" - what Elon wants to do - as a contributor to the cult of "global warming" is....

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

And cows are a problem, but mostly because of how many acres are used to support them. A field of grass absorbs much less carbon than a forest.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2021-01-05-grasslands-climate-change-global-warming

Grass absorbs alot of carbon individually, but a field has to be pretty carefully managed not to just emit it back out through decomposition.

You don't need to go back 10 thousand years. Global temperature has fluctuated significantly in the last 2000. The world is about a degree warmer than it's recent low 200 years ago, but only about .2 degree warmer than it was around 1000 years ago.

I notice you do not cite your sources.

That is because your statement is not true.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

-Crissa

 

[CybertruckAgent]

why is the texas problem related? i dont see the connection

It is in his mind and that’s what matters. At this point in history, an ICE car and and EV car are both fossil fuel powered. Someday maybe not, but if one really wanted to help the environment in an impactful way they wouldn’t drive a car at all, nonetheless buy a brand new car that has to be manufactured from scratch. The “greenest” thing to do would be keep your existing cars running in perpetuity or buy a used car.

 

[Idaho_7]

Go to "plateclimatology.com" and watch this video, it's important to understand nature's vs. man's impact on continually changing weather throughout the ages.

WildhavenMI: Your's is a good question of needs. One item to weigh is if you already own an old pickup, maybe keep it to haul things and tow things as needed. This way the daily runner can be a fun, agile EV to run the wheels off of.

Best to you and your decision.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

And cows are a problem, but mostly because of how many acres are used to support them. A field of grass absorbs much less carbon than a forest.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2021-01-05-grasslands-climate-change-global-warming

Grass absorbs alot of carbon individually, but a field has to be pretty carefully managed not to just emit it back out through decomposition.


I notice you do not cite your sources.

That is because your statement is not true.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

-Crissa

if you’re going to cite something for scientific discussion, probably best to not to use a web comic. It’s not accurate.

but it’s also not important. Fundamentally, by definition, the freaky Texas weather is not an example of climate. It’s an example of weather. Climate is the prevailing weather pattens over a long period. So one incident is not an example or a sign of climate change. It hasn’t happened in the last 10 years, so there is no trend. It has happened 100 years ago, so there is indication of the opposite of trend.

 

[Crissa]

if you’re going to cite something for scientific discussion, probably best to not to use a web comic. It’s not accurate.

Hello, ad hominem. If it's not accurate, explain why.
I hate the NYTimes, but here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/science/randall-munroe-xkcd-science-textbook.html

-Crissa