By Gregory Hennessy
There’s been a lot of media coverage lately about an apparent dispute between meteorologists and climatologists regarding the evidence of climate change (here's an example). Precipitating the most recent storm of opinion has been the release of a survey by the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. Of the nearly 600 members of the American 
Meteorological Society who completed at least part of the survey, nearly half responded that they did not believe global warming was happening (25%) or that they did not know whether it was happening (21%). Given the visible role that meteorologists play in informing the public (they are largely TV weather forecasters), their perspective plays an important role in how the public forms its opinions on climate change.
On several occasions, I have heard a meteorologist defend denial of climate change through some variation of the argument “I know all too well that beyond four or five days out, our forecast models are meaningless . . . how on Earth am I supposed to believe a model that goes 40 or more years into the future?” For example, see CNN’s Chad Myers. (In this particular clip, Mr. Myers goes so far as to accuse climatologists of inventing climate change for their own personal financial gain). And in a sense they are right—it would be foolish to use a short-term local forecast model to evaluate what might happen 40 or more years into the future. But that doesn’t mean that NO model can be used to forecast 40 years out.
The factors that go into modeling long-term trends and dynamics are different from those of modeling short-term dynamics. Different relationships are important. Different trade-offs matter. Different models are needed.
Consider business models. The model needed to manage a business over the next two weeks is different from the one needed to manage the next two months, which in turn is different from the one needed to manage the next two years. Over a two-week period, cash flow may be the most important consideration, and a good model is going to track expenses and income in meticulous detail. If my horizon is two months, finances still matter, but operational concerns are likely a more important element of the model. And while finances and operations will make an appearance in a strategic model looking at the next two years, competition, market changes, and technological evolution are bound to play a much more central role.
The two-week cash flow model will be largely worthless for forecasting cash flow two years out. Too much will have changed. But that does not negate the value and validity of a two-year model that focuses on long-term concerns.
We already know this, though. Even the climate change deniers know this. And here’s how. Suppose someone is a motor sports fan. Ask her to forecast the winner of the next big race. See if she thinks her forecasted winner is guaranteed to win. “Well, no, there are no guarantees” will be the likely answer. Then ask her to forecast the season champion. She will have no trouble identifying a small number of likely champions, maybe even just one or two. But how can she predict who will win the championship, if she can’t predict the winner of the next race?
You can do the same thing with any sports. Can you predict with certainty who the winners will be for this week’s baseball (or football or basketball) games? No. But does that stop you from predicting who will make the playoffs?
Card games, board games . . . you can use most any situation that plays out over time to highlight the fact that short-term forecasting is fundamentally different from long-term forecasting, and that limitations related to a short-term forecast in no way negate the ability to forecast over the longer term. Other factors might, but mere shortcomings of short-term models are not among them.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to listen to climatologists tell me about the weather over the next few days, and I’m not going to listen to meteorologists tell me about climate change.
Greg Hennessy is a consultant with Forio Business Simulations in San Francisco, CA. He has previously been an Engagement Manager at McKinsey & Company and was on the faculty of Shell Oil’s Learning Center. Greg earned an MS in management with a concentration in system dynamics and applied economics from MIT’s Sloan School of Management and an MS in social science from the California Institute of Technology.
Global Warming Predictions Map was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data.
By Barry Richmond
Barry Richmond was a pioneer in the field of systems thinking and system dynamics, an early supporter of Pegasus, and
a friend to many in our community. We are pleased to feature an excerpt from Tracing Connections, a new book published by isee systems and the Creative Learning Exchange as a tribute to Barry and his efforts to shed new light on some of our world's darkest challenges. This excerpt comes from the introductory chapter, "The Thinking in Systems Thinking: Eight Critical Skills," a piece that Barry wrote before his untimely death in 2002. © 2010 isee systems, inc., and the Creative Learning Exchange
Thinking is something we all do, but what is it? The dictionary says it's "to have a thought; to reason, reflect on, or ponder." Does that clear it up for you? It didn't for me. I will define thinking as consisting of two activities: constructing mental models and then simulating them in order to draw conclusions and make decisions.
We'll get to constructing and simulating in a moment. But first, what the heck is a mental model?
It's a "selective abstraction" of reality that you create and then carry around in your head. As big as some of our heads get, we still can't fit reality in there. Instead, we have models of various aspects of reality. We simulate these models in order to "make meaning" out of what we're experiencing, and also to help us arrive at decisions that inform our actions.
For example, you have to deal with your kid, or a sibling, or your parent. None of them are physically present inside your head. Instead, when dealing with them in a particular context, you select certain aspects of each that are germane to the context. In your mind's eye, you relate those aspects to each other using some form of cause-and-effect logic. Then, you simulate the interplay of these relationships under various "what if" scenarios to draw conclusions about a best course of action, or to understand something about what has occurred.
If you were seeking to understand why your daughter isn't doing well in arithmetic, you could probably safely ignore the color of her eyes when selecting aspects of reality to include in the mental model you are constructing. This aspect of reality is unlikely to help you in developing an understanding of the causes of her difficulties, or in drawing conclusions about what to do. But, in selecting a blouse for her birthday? Eye color probably ought to be in that mental model.
As the preceding example nicely illustrates, all models (mental and otherwise) are simplifications. They necessarily omit many aspects of the realities they represent. That statement is a paraphrase of something George Box once uttered: "All models are wrong; some models are useful." It's important to dredge this hallowed truth back up into consciousness from time to time to prevent yourself from becoming "too attached" to one of your mental models; nevertheless, despite the fact that all models are wrong, you have no choice but to use them--no choice, that is, if you are going to think. If you wish to employ non-rational means (like gut feel and intuition) in order to arrive at a conclusion or a decision, no mental model is needed. But, if you want to think, you can't do so without a mental model!
Barry Richmond was a leader in the fields of systems thinking and system dynamics. He founded High Performance Systems, now isee systems, a software and consulting company. He is known for the development of the STELLA and iThink simulation modeling software and for his commitment to K-12 education.
Click here for more information about Tracing Connections.
A chapter from the book written by educator Frank Draper, "Teaching by Wandering Around: Learning About the World Naturally," is available in the latest issue of the Creative Learning Exchange's newsletter.
by Janice Molloy
As we reported in a previous blog post, the MacArthur Foundation is funding a research project on the development of systems thinking in middle-school students called "Grinding New Lenses: A Design Project to Support a Systems View of the World
." Indiana University professor Kylie Peppler, one of the principal investigators along with colleague Melissa Gresalfi, generously took time from her whirlwind schedule to answer questions about the project by email.
JM: How did you become interested in systems thinking?
KP: I became interested in systems thinking because of my interest in design, games, and learning, and particularly the work of Katie Salen and Mitchel Resnick. Systems thinking appeals to me because I'm interested in the interconnectedness of ideas, building bridges between seemingly different domains, and finding ways to be a vehicle of change in a time when it's badly needed. Systems thinking prepares us to see and act on the world around us.
JM: Why do you think it is an important area for students to learn about and experience?
KP: The 21st century requires youth to think across the disciplines. While schools are set up to teach disciplines as separate and distinct, as adults we are asked to think across and apply these skills, knowledge, and dispositions in our everyday activities. Schooling is increasingly fragmented and doesn't allow young people to develop the type of interdisciplinary thinking necessary for today's workforce. Systems thinking then becomes one way to unify the curriculum and to encourage youth to see patterns in all disciplines but especially science, mathematics, history, literature, and the arts. Additionally, as youth come to understand systems and how they operate, they are well positioned to act on them for change.
JM: Can you talk a little about the idea of having kids create their own simulations? How do you see this developing and why do you think it's important for students to learn through "play"? What do you think they will take away from the process?
KP: Much of the prior work on complex systems has focused on kids playing with variables on a pre-designed system, including termites, traffic jams, or other systems that are of interest to kids but with which they have little first-hand experience. As we move into new media and begin to use some of the latest tools available, we can now allow kids to create their own systems and teach them the language of systems thinking. This is an important distinction, mostly because kids can build simulations of systems that are important to them, but they can also "play" with the entire system, which is the case in game design. Games are really systems that kids have deep experiences with in their entirety. With these other systems, kids have little to no experience. I'm hoping that this is a generative distinction in our upcoming research. We're very interested in understanding the contribution of games and design to the development of a systems thinking disposition in young people.
JM: I notice from your website that you are a visual artist. What do you see as the connections between art and systems?
KP: In my view, the arts, design, and systems are interrelated in important ways. Artists and designers tend to have a good sense of the "way things work" precisely because they have built, tested, and evaluated their ideas many times over. In a sense, they are constantly building models of the world around them and finding ways to communicate their ideas to large numbers of people in a visual language. I am also interested in environmental art, media art, and other artistic forms that have addressed the notion of "systems" in their work directly, whether that be an environmental system or in highlighting digital media as a complex system.
JM: What kind of response have you received from colleagues and others about this project?
KP: There has been an overwhelming amount of excitement and enthusiasm for the work. There is a clear need; many teachers, schools, and after-school centers are anxious to be beta-testers of the curriculum.
JM: What is your hope for this project over the longer run, in terms of the implementation of the curriculum standards and beyond?
KP: We have pretty modest goals at the moment but are hoping that our designed curriculum modules will connect to a variety of curriculum standards, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines, language arts, and the arts. In the longer run, we're hoping that the curriculum modules will be taken up in classrooms and after-school centers across the country, leading to a greater understanding of systems at an early age in this next generation of youth. We're also hoping that teachers are inspired to adapt the curriculum modules to their local context, incorporate new tools and platforms as they become available, and share these ideas with others in the teacher wiki that we will be setting up.
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications, managing editor of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and program director of the annual Systems Thinking in Action conference.
Photo of Kylie Peppler courtesy of Indiana University
By Janice Molloy
Educator Linda Booth Sweeney wants you to build your "systems thinking muscles." The coauthor of The Systems Thinking Playbook and author of Connected Wisdom: Living Stories About Living Systems and When a Butterfly Sneezes, Linda 
has spent her career looking for creative ways to share the concepts and tools of systems thinking across generations, learning styles, and professions. From developing experiential activities that bring systems lessons to life to redesigning signs at a nature center to better capture interdependencies, her goal is to help people, organizations, and institutions stop operating from crisis to crisis by using systems as the context for their learning, problem solving, and design efforts.
Earlier this year, Linda launched what she calls "The Friedman Project," based on the work of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. She said in the first entry in February, "I became a fan of his writing early on when I realized he writes from a systems perspective. What does that mean? You'll rarely find Friedman focused on just a part or a fragment. To Friedman, nothing stands in isolation. Instead, he writes about systems--interrelated parts and processes that continually affect each other over time. And he sees systems patterns everywhere--in escalating gas prices, in financial markets, in the dynamics related to female literacy, in wildlife management--and he wants his reader to understand these systems as well."
The latest installment of "The Friedman Project" focuses on Friedman's December 27, 2008 op-ed, "Win, Win, Win, Win, Win . . . ." In this article, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist describes a recurring dynamic in which "gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose." He continues, "I've already seen this play three times in my life. Trust me: It always ends the same way--badly."
To illustrate this pattern of behavior, Linda and system dynamicist Chris Soderquist teamed up to create a Netsim--a web-based simulation model. Users can run the simulation using different parameters to gain a deeper understanding of the system's behavior, including the consequences--intended or not--of various interventions. The "Win, Win, Win, Win, Win . . . ." Netsim explores the relationship between fuel efficiency, gas price, and driving habits. (For another example of a Netsim, see this blog post by isee systems about modeling the H1N1 flu outbreak. Using the model, you can experiment with vaccination and "stay at home" policies to limit the spread of the H1N1 flu.)
By visually depicting possible behaviors in a system under differing circumstances, tools like a Netsim can help us exercise our systems thinking muscles. And the stronger those muscles, the better we'll be at evaluating policies, designing effective interventions, and working toward sustainable change. It's the best kind of win, win, win, win, win.
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications, managing editor of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and program director of the annual Systems Thinking in Action conference.
By Nalani Linder
How can we live well within the means of nature?
How can systems thinking support the kinds of teaching and dialogue necessary to inspire shifts away from unsustainable behavior?
These were two of the compelling questions I considered with a group of educators during the Sustainability Education Summer Institute (SESI) held a few weeks ago on Bainbridge Island, near Seattle.
About 175 people gathered for this inaugural event, which was based on a similar East-coast institute held earlier through the SoL Education Partnership. K-12 sustainability educators, pri
marily from the Pacific Northwest, came together to learn from each other and discuss how they've been implementing curricula and programs in their schools. It was a diverse group; the common bond was their passion for integrating sustainability in their classrooms.
I was there neither as a teacher nor as an expert in sustainability matters. I was there to present on systems thinking "basics," based on the workshop my colleagues and I present as "New Habits of Mind for New Solutions."
Because I'm used to having to "sell" the value of systems thinking to others, it was a treat to scan the agenda and see systems thinking and system dynamics offered side-by-side with resources for sustainability education. Event coordinator Gilda Wheeler shared the reasoning for the design: "We think that people don't need to understand all there is about sustainability issues to be a systems thinker, but it helps to understand basic ideas of systems thinking to really understand issues of sustainability." I knew this wasn't a new connection--after all, the original Limits to Growth was published nearly 40 years ago, and climate change simulations have been around for years. But it was still exciting to be a part of the SESI group, most of whom were learning about ST and SD for the first time.
One highlight for me was the first keynote, by Jaimie Cloud of The Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education. She talked about people's experience of her Fishing Game, an adaptation of Dennis Meadows's Fish Banks. Over many rounds of play, players try to catch fish to support their family while others are doing the same. A classic "Tragedy of the Commons" ensues, with everyone fishing more and more until the lake runs out of fish. Sure enough, Jaimie reported that whenever she facilitates the simulation, people regularly run out of fish before the game ends.
What I found particularly interesting is that, instead of focusing on the archetype as the learning, Jaimie used the story to highlight a subtle but powerful message: Don't confuse the mental model of scarcity with the idea of system limits. That is, notice the difference between the conventional thinking that there's not enough resources for everyone, and the thinking when we understand that there's a finite supply of resources and that supply depends on many variables, including some we can control.
The simple fishing example with its profound lesson about worldview and system dynamics seemed to hit home with this group of sustainability educators, and set the stage for further thinking about systems during the rest of the Institute.
Learnings for Systems Thinkers
Considering that I was not the target audience for the SESI, I walked away with several great learnings that I'd like to share with the Pegasus community.
As an individual, I learned more about the depth of what "sustainability" can mean and about the common myths about the sustainability movement that still exist. (Others interested in this idea of myths about sustainability can read the March 2009 article from Scientific American, Top 10 Myths About Sustainability.)
As a parent and community member, I learned about the challenges schools face in incorporating "sustainability thinking" into the curriculum and programming within limitations of budget, time, and staff bandwidth. At the same time, I was encouraged by stories of creative teachers and administrators who have found points of leverage and are implementing inspiring changes.
As a relatively new systems thinking trainer/advocate, I learned that people who are passionate about sustainability are an easy audience for introducing the language, principles, and tools of systems thinking. They seem to have an intuitive understanding of the concepts of limits and circular causality, interconnectedness, and change over time. The systems thinking material that they were presented seemed to give a framework for what they already know to be true about living systems.
This event was the first of its kind in Washington State, and there's already talk about next year's conference. I'm heartened by the ever-developing connection between sustainability education and systems thinking, and how the growing work in the former will boost visibility of the latter. When I was leaving the Institute, one of the participants told me he thought that understanding systems thinking was a "critically important part" of the ongoing work of sustainability education. Now that's a promising piece of feedback, indeed.
Nalani Linder studied systems thinking in her Master's program, Organization Systems Renewal (now at Seattle University). She is active in a community of practice for ST trainers at The Boeing Company, and is co-leading the teams program at this year's Pegasus Conference. Nalani is also working on a research project about MBTI typologies and systems thinking aptitude.
photo of fern: Nancy Daugherty
By Greg Hennessy
The 2009 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society was recently held in Albuquerque, NM. I was a member of the Society throughout much of the 1990s and attended several of
the conferences. Work demands and personal considerations lead me to neglect the annual meeting for the last 10 years. But a renewed professional focus on system dynamics led me to signing up for this year's conference, and I felt both excitement and a bit of trepidation--the Society had been very "cliquey," and I had mixed feelings about my prior involvement.
Many of the old guard were in attendance, men from whom I learned so much. Some, like John Sterman and Dennis Meadows, I have worked with directly. Others, like George Richardson, Peter Milling, and Jac Vennix, have influenced me more than they will ever know, even though I've only met them briefly once or twice. I was reminded of what a truly amazing community the Society is.
There were also many new faces . . . a great many. The poster session, which at the 1993 conference in Cancun consisted of a handful of static presentations, ran fully down two sides of the plenary ballroom. There must have been at least 100 posters presenting the findings of roughly twice that many authors, spanning an amazing range of problems. And while the Society's conferences have always had an impressive international representation, it used to be weighted toward a handful of universities in the U.S. and Europe. In Albuquerque, I saw an inspiring range of affiliations. Every continent was represented, most amply. (To be fair, I did not see anyone with an "Antarctic" hometown listed on their badge. But I did overhear someone talking about time spent on the southern continent.)
It was also terrific to see the range of demographic diversity at the conference. Like every person I've ever met with a systems perspective, I firmly believe that diversity provides a means to polish our lens on the world. And the Society will only benefit from the breadth of perspectives that are being brought into the community.
The plenary sessions were by and large very good. A few speakers could have reduced their speed or bombast . . . or both. But most were well done, and several were truly inspiring. The conference was bookended by keynotes from Dennis Meadows and John Sterman. Both spoke about global climate change, but each with his own take on how to address it. Seemingly resigned to the inevitable, Meadows gave a sobering presentation that emphasized the need to help communities adapt to the oncoming changes. Sterman rallied the assembled troops, calling on the spirit of Dana Meadows, to insist that we have "exactly the right amount of time we need." His presentation of the C-ROADS model (a decision-support computer simulation model that allows policy makers to vary assumptions about carbon emissions and see the long-term results) provided hope to many that we might yet get the policy changes needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. While some may debate which point of view is right or more useful, I plan to call upon each, as appropriate, to keep me focused on the job ahead.
Other plenary standouts included an exploration of healthcare policy reform issues, presented by Bobby Milstein of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jack Homer, and Gary Hirsch; a pair of interesting presentations on psychology and social dynamics; and an exploration of pandemic influenza using agent-based modeling, by Robert Glass of Sandia Labs.
The parallel sessions were, perhaps naturally, a mixed bag. But the selection committee did a good job at sorting the presentations and presenters into cohesive hour-long sessions. It is simply amazing to catch one of the "rock stars" talking to a small group of 30 or 40, and probably more exciting to catch one of the up-and-comers.
Next year's conference will be in Seoul, Korea. I'm not sure if I'll be able to make it. But I bet it'll be worth the trip.
Greg Hennessy is a consultant with the Systems Thinking Collaborative and teaches at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas. He studied System Dynamics at MIT and will be starting the doctoral program in Environmental Science at UNLV in January 2010.
By Janice Molloy
Can a computer model help save the planet? The folks at Climate Interactive, an initiative out of Sustainability Institute, are counting on it.
System dynamicists have been spreading the word about sustainability since the publication of Limits to Growth in 1972. So it comes as no surprise that a group of MIT-trained modelers has teamed with experts from other fields to create an ever-growing set of user-friendly, scientifically grounded climate change simulators.
The goal of Climate Interactive is to provide fast, accurate answers to "what if" questions so that decision makers and others can see the results of different scenarios on carbon emissions, atmospheric carbon levels, and temperature. This information can then inform policy discussions at all levels--from U.N. negotiations to high-school classrooms. CI is also sharing their analytical tools using open source approaches so that others can adapt, incorporate, and build on them.
The online version of CI's primary simulator, Climate Rapid Overview and Decision-support Simulator (C-ROADS), was released today. Two other free simulators are already available: The Climate Bathtub Animation and MIT's Greenhouse Gas Simulator. CI also has a blog, written by long-time Pegasus contributors Drew Jones and Beth Sawin.
Try the "sims" and send the CI folks your feedback!