The paper 'concludes' that AGW increases the risk of drought, but does not tie the recent droughts specifically to AGW as the submitter suggests. That is just an assumption.

"the area" is the problem. Like I said, specific topology and history of the selected location, not the general area, is a very important consideration that you just conveniently gloss over.

Like I said, there was coastline in "the area" of the Tsunami in Japan that because of its topology did not see the amplitude that areas like the Fukushima coast did. Sorry if those details make your point more difficult, its simple fact.

I did not say there could not be one. I don't have the information to say there can or cannot. Do you?

Do you have information that shows the topography is the same, or is that an assumption?

Tsunami amplitude is a result of the topography of the ocean floor near the coastline and the shape of the coastline itself. All coastlines are exposed to tsunamis, but they only get very big in a limited number of places. Even in Japan, just short distances from the places where the tsunami did great damage, were other coastal areas that saw a much smaller wave height.

Yeah, they should start simple. "Do Laundry" is too big a task to start with. Just start with a useful subtask.... I'd like a robot that can sort socks. Throw clean ones in a hopper and out come matched pairs.... singles stay there and get matched later. Perfect that then add another feature.

Well, it certainly is a shitload of data to analyze.

How about covering the vehicle with laser rated photovoltaics? Use that energy to your advantage.

We're running out of gaps.

I was surprised that he got only an 18 months sentence. But it sounds like he learned his lesson.

I have.

And you have an amazing ability to make ignorant statements and not even realize it. If you had just done the smallest bit of checking, you'd know how stupid your post was. Everyone else here does, so I don't even need to respond anymore....

ignorance, plain and simple.

But it is not CF alone, although that is a very important factor. It is also design life, lifetime O&M, etc. Windmills don't last very long, new nuclear has a 60 year design life extendable to past 80 easily. Nuclear plants need fuel and parts replacement and staffing and regulatory and wast fees. Wind needs backup, there is a significant cost to that. Wind needs added a decentralized transmission infrastructure, a large generator can centralize it, there is a cost to that.

The systemic cost & value is what is most important.

The good thing about nuclear investment is much of the money stays at home. For solar, a big percentage goes straight to Chine. Also, nuclear plants generate thousands of high paying jobs over their lifetime, providing a social economic return not found in most renewables. The total 'societal economic return' of nuclear is much higher than renewables, which themselves must ride on the backs of conventional generation to be successful.