Tim Little wrote:
 > The better one understands the internal behaviour of a chaotic system,
 > theless external influence is required to guide it toward a desired
 > statepath.

Yes, you're right and I was wrong.
When it comes to maintaining a small set of parameters in 'weather
space' in a region without causing unwanted effects elsewhere, I'm not
sure sufficient understanding is possible, even with typical Traveller
technology.

 > Completely the opposite.
 >
 > The more measurements you take and the more frequent they are, the
 > better your model can be and the better your potential for control.

I screwed up again.
I thought that you would accumulate more errors and push the system
further and further away from the desired state, on the assumption that
you couldn't reduce the magnitude of measurement/intervention errors by
making them more frequently.

On reflection, this is a bad assumption if we use the examples of
navigation and industrial control systems.

For the case of local weather, I don't know that 'frequently enough
measurements and adjustments' are possible without "Always Sunny in
Sunnydale" means "catastrophic flooding in Watertown".

Rob O'Connor