Re: [TML] Weather Control
robocon@xxxxxx
(25 May 2018 03:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Tim
(25 May 2018 04:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Rob O'Connor
(26 May 2018 00:51 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control Tim (26 May 2018 03:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Rob O'Connor
(27 May 2018 01:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Timothy Collinson
(29 May 2018 10:28 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Tim
(29 May 2018 16:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Timothy Collinson
(29 May 2018 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control Tim 26 May 2018 03:56 UTC
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 10:51:13AM +1000, Rob O'Connor wrote: > 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. Yes, it might not. The control inputs are going to be very low powered compared with the internal fluxes in the system, so the evolution of the system is going to be very close to a path that could have happened naturally. It's not likely to be wonderful weather everywhere, which would be difficult to even define in a lot of cases. It's more likely to be just preventing the worst outliers - major floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other destructive events. My first thought was that it might be used to make the weather cyclic. E.g. every year, the same weather patterns repeat. On second thought: while possible, this might be a bad idea since the periodicity itself could possibly have harmful long term effects. It would also be difficult to maintain as underlying conditions change. Almost all of the benefits and few of the downsides would come from just projecting the weather a long way into the future, working out the minimum necessary adjustments to avoid dangerous extremes and maintain it on the predicted course. I think that should be achievable with Traveller technology, and be worthwhile enough to justify the cost. > 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". I agree that "Always Sunny in Sunnydale" is probably not a good idea, though mostly for different reasons. For one, that sort of effect over the long term would likely turn Sunnydale's whole region into a desert. For another, the benefit/cost of doing so is likely much less than just preventing destructive storms and maintaining predictability. Maybe there could be some major resort areas on some rich and very comfortable worlds where they ensure that, while it does rain, it never does so during the day but only during some nights according to a schedule published well in advance. But then again, maybe not. - Tim