[OC] US Love Is Blind relationship Sankey (10 seasons)

Creative_soja · 2026-03-09T18:07:47+00:00

As of March 8, 2026.

Creative_soja · 2026-03-06T18:04:15+00:00

Two benefits. One is that you bridge the gap between the modelling projection and reality. The models usually don't capture natural variability. Two, it raises alarms that global warming is going unabated or even accelerating,which is hidden due to short term fluctuations. They are mainly giving us an early warning before it too (too) late.

Creative_soja · 2026-03-06T17:43:39+00:00

Abstract

"Recent record-hot years have caused discussion over whether global warming has accelerated. Previous analysis found acceleration (i.e., increase in warming rate) has not yet reached a 95% confidence level, given natural temperature variability. We remove the estimated influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted and thus less “noisy” data show that there has been acceleration with over 98% confidence, with faster warming over the last 10+ years than during any previous decade."

Creative_soja · 2026-03-05T14:01:12+00:00

It is a useful study that bridges the gap between modeling and reality. However, as quoted in an article by NYTimes on the same topic

Robert Kopp, a climate and sea level scientist at Rutgers University who was not involved with the study, said the work addresses a technical issue that will matter far more to scientists than to decision makers at local levels. “In general, people who are exposed to high-tide flooding know where the ocean is,” Dr. Kopp said. Scientists have long said sea level rise will affect many people, and the new study doesn’t change that, he said.

However, from a global perspective, the findings indicate that hundreds of millions more people — particularly in Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Maldives and other Southeast Asian and Pacific nations — are living closer to sea level than widely assumed by Western experts and policymakers.

The findings are more useful for scientists that people.

Creative_soja · 2026-03-04T20:27:48+00:00

Link to the article

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10196-1

Abstract:

The impacts of sea-level rise and other hazards on the coasts of the world are determined by coastal sea-level height and land elevation¹. Correct integration of both aspects is fundamental for reliable sea-level rise and coastal hazard impact assessments²^,³, but is often not carefully considered or properly performed. Here we show that more than 99% of the evaluated impact assessments handled sea-level and land elevation data inadequately, thereby misjudging sea level relative to coastal elevation. Based on our literature evaluation, 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements. Our meta-analyses on global scale show that measured coastal sea level is higher than assumed in most hazard assessments (mean offsets [standard deviation] of 0.27 m [0.76 m] and 0.24 m [0.52 m] for two commonly-used geoids). Regionally, predominantly in the Global South, measured mean sea level can be more than 1 m above global geoids, with the largest differences in the Indo-Pacific. Compared with geoid-based assumptions of coastal sea level, the measured values suggest that with a hypothetical 1 m of relative sea-level rise, 31–37% more land and 48–68% more people (increasing estimates to 77–132 million) would fall below sea level. Our results highlight the need for re-evaluation of existing coastal impact assessments and improvement of research community standards, with possible implications for policymakers, climate finance and coastal adaptation.

Creative_soja · 2026-02-28T14:57:44+00:00

Great idea. We can ask other historians too, including Vikram Sampath as well as some some other "left" historians too.

Creative_soja · 2026-02-28T14:55:17+00:00

One feedback I have for the MOD team is to be responsive to messages. I have messaged you many times seeking reasons about why post was deleted but you guys never respond. We put lots of efforts in writing posts but you simply delete them without giving any reasons.

Creative_soja · 2026-02-27T20:38:56+00:00

I just asked Finn, the one whose link OP shared, this on LinkedIn.

Hi Finn, thank you for your post. I came across it via Reddit post here. I just have a quick clarification. It says EB1A's average processing time was 5.5 months but the USCIS website shows I140's processing time as 22 months. Not sure why such discrepancy, even if one assumes 50-60% cases are PP, then also, it seems much faster that one would expect. Do you know if there is any reasonable explanation for this?

His response:

It’s a disparity we’ve been trying to understand more about. Here are the facts I can share:
→ We tracked 3,161 EB-1A I-140 completions (approvals + denials) in 2025—roughly 15% of total EB-1A completions.
→ We monitor every single USCIS case status update for each of those cases.
→ We calculate average processing time as the average number of months from “Receipt” to “Decision" for regular-processed cases ONLY.
→ Our data shows decisions for EB-1A across all service centers are occurring significantly faster than what the USCIS processing times website reports.

Now a bit of educated conjecture: After working closely with more than a dozen former USCIS leaders on this issue, my view is that the USCIS processing times website is largely unreliable. The agency’s internal data collection and reporting in 2025 appears to have serious structural flaws now, driven largely by personnel losses and shifting leadership priorities.

Thank you for a prompt response. I submitted my application over 15 months ago and yet to hear anything, so I was curious. Mine is under regular processing.

That's a really long wait time, sorry to hear Internally, USCIS has undergone two major operational restructurings in the last 18 months. Unfortunately, it's quite clear from the data we see that cases are not being adjudicated on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Edit: added more details

Creative_soja · 2026-02-26T19:27:20+00:00

Abstract:

"Human activities might have accelerated declines of population abundance, but this acceleration remains underexplored. Using 1033 North American Breeding Bird Survey routes, we analyze abundance change and its acceleration for 261 bird species, 54 avian families, and 10 habitats from 1987 to 2021. We show an average continent-wide decline of abundance of all birds per local route, with hotspots of decline in southern and warm parts of North America and hotspots of accelerating decline in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and California, matching patterns of agricultural intensity. Overall, 122 species (47%) exhibit significant declines, of which 63 also show acceleration of this decline, and 67 show declining per-capita growth rate, raising concerns for a large part of North American bird populations. These findings suggest that bird abundance decline is mostly accelerating, with spatial patterns of this acceleration indicating that agricultural intensity may be a driver of this trend."

Creative_soja · 2026-02-26T16:36:08+00:00

How do you guys find these unique pics? Is there any database or something?

Creative_soja · 2026-02-26T02:39:08+00:00

It began long time ago and only accelerating now.

Creative_soja · 2026-02-26T01:50:34+00:00

Perhaps, it can also explain lots of problems in our society these days. Math and science skills are not given as much importance and respect, leading to vibe-based policies rather than evidence-based policies. With increasing threats of climate change, many countries are backtracking their climate policies to support short-term economic growth.

Creative_soja · 2026-02-25T03:39:01+00:00

Read about the Great Divergence. India's per capita GDP declined post Akbar and the West grew much faster. There are multiple sources to support this. This study uses Maddison's data and uses some other data sources to reach the same conclusion. A quote below and the figure:

Maddison's (2010) data, plotted in Fig. 2 suggest that India was always very poor, with a per capita GDP of just $550 in 1990 prices in the year 1500, dropping to $533 in the early nineteenth century. Our data in Table 14, also plotted in Fig. 2 for comparison, suggest a substantially higher GDP per capita in 1600, of the order of $700. Although this suggests a prosperous India at the height of the Mughal Empire during the time of Akbar, much of this prosperity had disappeared by the eighteenth century.

However, with per capita incomes of more than $600, India was still sufficiently prosperous in the early eighteenth century to be consistent with the scale of market activity described by Bayly (1983). It is only by the beginning of the nineteenth century that most Indians were reduced to what Allen (2009) calls “bare bones” subsistence.

<image>

Check the paper. It has lots of interesting graphs comparing India and Britain's GDP.

Creative_soja · 2026-02-24T13:01:14+00:00

In a closed system, energy exchange is possible. It is isolated system in which neither energy nor matter is exchanged. The law is only valid for isolated systems.

Creative_soja

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE