tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5615362598956744033..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Systems Thinking, Lumpers and Splitters, Systems EducationEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2224957234955144262019-07-12T18:16:58.025-04:002019-07-12T18:16:58.025-04:00Uncle Tuvalu, regardless of his implied destinatio...Uncle Tuvalu, regardless of his implied destination, always lands in Venezuela.velvet noushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11524120496767535819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85238153098187860212019-07-12T13:50:45.863-04:002019-07-12T13:50:45.863-04:00I was doing system models in the early 1990's....I was doing system models in the early 1990's. Around 1993, I helped organize an industry consortium to prepare a dynamic system model for Arctic ice breaking LNG carriers. Later I advised a few engineering graduate students on how to lay out flow diagrams and program the modules for system models intended to optimize mega developments in several countries, in which we had to take into account human response to our actions. <br /><br />The idea that you discovered complex models and that engineers don't understand the concepts may apply to mom and pop engineers or to shops doing very unsophisticated modeling. The problem I see is that you have such a limited view of the full system that you sit there thinking California's efforts to control the climate are going to succeed.Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66487516740658834522019-07-12T10:13:43.970-04:002019-07-12T10:13:43.970-04:00Rabbit, there are very few, well, none of these th...Rabbit, there are very few, well, none of these thought bubbles that are difficult to understand. Their jellyfish nature derives from the total number, not complexity.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27147661186379618462019-07-11T21:22:58.523-04:002019-07-11T21:22:58.523-04:00Now some, not Eli to be sure might point out that ...Now some, not Eli to be sure might point out that given the large amount of really good analyses of each of those bubbles, and the really large numbers of folk who do not understand any of it, including Tom, perhaps a new approach emphasizing connections might be usefulEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49005818534499789072019-07-11T12:34:55.147-04:002019-07-11T12:34:55.147-04:00And when you “plan” around an indefensibly low atm...And when you “plan” around an indefensibly low atmospheric sensitivity (say, 2.1 K with a safety margin of .4 K), you’re going TOO simple.velvet noushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11524120496767535819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58134615580539286602019-07-11T10:55:12.714-04:002019-07-11T10:55:12.714-04:00On YouTube one can find dozens of explanations in ...On YouTube one can find dozens of explanations in Ted Talks, one-off presentations, debates, etc. Some of them clearer than the one in this post, some of them just as elaborate.<br /><br />From the various audience reactions, it seems as though the inputs and outputs and even the interactions are adequately explained. Everybody seems to get it.<br /><br />Until the values of the elements of the various pieces of the puzzle, expressed as parts of an equation, are specified, it doesn't resolve much.<br /><br />If atmospheric sensitivity is low, things are okay. If atmospheric sensitivity is high, things are not okay.<br /><br />That's much simpler than your diagram. Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.com