This is important because scientists are concerned that unchecked global warming could cause already dry areas to get drier. (Global warming may also cause wet areas to get wetter.) Cao and Caldeira’s findings indicate that reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide could prevent droughts caused by climate change.
Via press release in Eurekalert, from Stanford, and the Carnegie Institution:
Cutting carbon dioxide helps prevent drying
Washington, D.C.—Recent climate modeling has shown that reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would give the Earth a wetter climate in the short term. New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao and Ken Caldeira offers a novel explanation for why climates are wetter when atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are decreasing. Their findings, published online today by Geophysical Research Letters, show that cutting carbon dioxide concentrations could help prevent droughts caused by global warming.
Cao and Caldeira’s new work shows that this precipitation increase is due to the heat-trapping property of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the middle of the atmosphere. This warm air higher in the atmosphere tends to prevent the rising air motions that create thunderstorms and rainfall.
As a result, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide tends to suppress precipitation. Similarly, a decrease in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide tends to increase precipitation.
The results of this study show that cutting the concentration of precipitation-suppressing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global precipitation. This is important because scientists are concerned that unchecked global warming could cause already dry areas to get drier. (Global warming may also cause wet areas to get wetter.) Cao and Caldeira’s findings indicate that reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide could prevent droughts caused by climate change.
“This study shows that the climate is going to be drier on the way up and wetter on the way down,” Caldeira said, adding:”Proposals to cool the earth using geo-engineering tools to reflect sunlight back to space would not cause a similar pulse of wetness.”
The team’s work shows that carbon dioxide rapidly affects the structure of the atmosphere, causing quick changes precipitation, as well as many other aspects of Earth’s climate, well before the greenhouse gas noticeably affects temperature. These results have important implications for understanding the effects of climate change caused by carbon dioxide, as well as the potential effects of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
“The direct effects of carbon dioxide on precipitation take place quickly,” said Cao. “If we could cut carbon dioxide concentrations now, we would see precipitation increase within the year, but it would take many decades for climate to cool.”
Recently, it was found that a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to a temporary increase in global precipitation. We use the Hadley Center coupled atmosphere-ocean model, HadCM3L, to demonstrate that this precipitation increase is a consequence of precipitation sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations through fast tropospheric adjustment processes. Slow ocean cooling explains the longer-term decrease in precipitation. Increased CO2 tends to suppress evaporation/precipitation whereas increased temperatures tend to increase evaporation/precipitation. When the enhanced CO2 forcing is removed, global precipitation increases temporarily, but this increase is not observed when a similar negative radiative forcing is applied as a reduction of solar intensity. Therefore, transient precipitation increase following a reduction in CO2-radiative forcing is a consequence of the specific character of CO2 forcing and is not a general feature associated with decreases in radiative forcing.
If someone will send me a copy of the paper (willis [at) surfacetemps.org) I’ll be happy to take a look.
The beauty of the paper seems to be that it describes a situation (a quick reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration) that, as far as I know, hasn’t been observed in nature …
So usually I’d ask “Where’s the comparison of the model with the observations?” But it appears they’ve sidestepped that very neatly.
But heck, I could be wrong, it’s just a press release and an abstract. The paper may say something different.
w.
davidmhoffer, from this I can’t tell whether you read the paper.
I read it because the press summary looked dubious. CO2 does not warm the atmosphere more than the surface enough to suppress convection in the long term, but those statements are limited to transients, as I found by reading what they did. They never had any phrases about CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere in the paper.
Their study was to learn about the response to step changes, not to suggest such a thing would happen. You can learn a lot by these tests, especially since CO2 is increasing too rapidly for an equilibrium response, which may explain why droughts are expected in the near-term. It is also interesting that geo-engineering approaches that may quickly reduce solar radiation don’t have the same effect of increasing precipitation.
Jim D says:
March 26, 2011 at 1:25 pm
It was only one of the warmest years because there was one of the strongest El Nino’s. If it wasn’t stable the year would have easily had record global temperatures, when it didn’t.
I didn’t make it past the first sentence. Modeling again. Until a model has a proven track record of successful predictions, it is pseudoscience, not science.
“The team’s work shows that carbon dioxide rapidly affects the structure of the atmosphere, causing quick changes in precipitation, as well as many other aspects of Earth’s climate, well before the greenhouse gas noticeably affects temperature.”
In saying the above I think that they have inadvertently hit on a truth.
More CO2 (or more of any GHG) causes more downward IR to immediately increase evaporation rates in a speeding up of the water cycle.
That then prevents (mostly or entirely) any increase in surface air temperatures because the extra energy at the surface has been accelerated faster upward to space to cancel out the effect of more CO2.
However, natural changes in the speed of the water cycle from oceanic and solar variability are so large that the effect of more CO2 would be indiscernible.
They are getting there but don’t see the implications of their own work.
As others have said they look at the model as if it is reality in miniature and fail to acknowledge that reality is not playing ball.
The AGW people sure love their models.
Is it correct to say that an unproven and indeed unprovable model “shows” or proves anything? It might suggest a result, but nothing us proven until the model is proven. I find it troubling that the words they use offer no room for doubt, there is no equivocation. Based on the summary, they offer only a stack of assumptions based on assumptions and try to pass it off as scientific proof. It is closer to Witchcraft, and only shows they have an agenda. Where are those Science Police when you need them?
Jim D says:
March 26, 2011 at 1:39 pm
davidmhoffer, from this I can’t tell whether you read the paper.>>>
There are so many holes in both the abstract and the press release that I see no point in reading it.
“CO2 does not warm the atmosphere more than the surface enough to suppress convection in the long term,>>>
Correct. Although since sensitivity is higher in colder regions, the argument could be made that warming would decrease convection processes, though not by any substantive amount.
” but those statements are limited to transients, as I found by reading what they did.”>>>
Transients driven by step changes that are impossible. Might as well study the effects on precipitation of filling elephants with helium.
“They never had any phrases about CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere in the paper.”
They point blank said it in the press release and in the abstract it further says ” …is a consequence of precipitation sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations through fast tropospheric adjustment processes.” What is the troposphere adjusting to other than temperature?
“Their study was to learn about the response to step changes, not to suggest such a thing would happen.>>>
Read both the abstract and the press release again, that is EXACTLY what they are suggesting. They studied something that that cannot physicaly occur! Then they had the audacity to announce the results as being likely consequence of reducing CO2! So in brief they created a fictitious and impossible event, made up some data to describe the fictitious and impossible event, and then announced results from the fictitious, impossible event with made up data as if it applied to the real world, and without a single experiment of any sort to show that the model in any way mirrors reality. Probably decided not to bother when they discovered they’d modeled a physicaly impossible event which by default means any experiment would also be impossible to do.
“You can learn a lot by these tests,”>>>
OK, help me out here. What do you learn by modeling something that is physicaly impossible, with made up data to describe it, and no testing what so ever to determine if the simulation has any semblance to reality at all? And if by some miracle you happened upon a nugget of truth about that physicaly impossible situation, is would tell you….what? about things that are physicaly possible and may be measured by real data?
“especially since CO2 is increasing too rapidly for an equilibrium response, which may explain why droughts are expected in the near-term.>>>
Read what you just wrote. “expected in the near-term”. Expected by whom? Simulations like the ones I just trashed? Or actual data showing actual trends? You can’t take results from one simulation of something impossible, extract results from and imply that they are valid real world results, and then confirm them via “expectation” of future events. Where did the “expectation” come from? Oh yes, more computer simulations. So now we have new simulations based on impossible events with made up data that confirms the results of other simulations because they both predict something that hasn’t happened and yet and cannot be verified nor an experiment done to show that ANY of them have any basis in reality? Where’s my helium tank, and can I get those elephants in pink?
” It is also interesting that geo-engineering approaches that may quickly reduce solar radiation don’t have the same effect of increasing precipitation.>>>
Yup, and we know those don’t have the same effect because…someone modeled something physicaly impossible, described it with made up data, did no experiments to verify the accuracy of the simulations, published results, and now we have TWO works of total and complete fiction, both about things that are impossible, with no experiments at all to show that either the made up simulations or the made up data have any basis in reality at all for either of them and…
You want to start drawing conclusions about the differences in the real world effects of processes that are actually physicaly possible?
Are these scientists on drugs?
Are you on drugs?
Am I on drugs. Because if I was lying in an ally somewhere with an over dose of heroin, LSD, cocaine and a blood alcohol level of 0.3…that MIGHT explain why I keep seeing total insanity passed off as science. Oh look… there’s a floating pink elephant going by right outside my window… look at the size of the shadow he/she/it casts…omigod! Let’s simulate thousands of floating pink elephants as a global cooling strategy!
davidmhoffer, did you read the part where they said
“We do not
suggest that sudden changes in external forcings represent
realistic possibilities for the future, but they are idealized
mathematical functions designed to illustrate the fundamental
physics that would be operative even at lower rates
of radiative forcing changes.”?
This is just an academic study to help understand the climate system better. I don’t even know why the public would be interested in this. It is similar to the Schmidt et al. paper where they removed all the CO2 to see its effect on cooling the climate.
The other important thing to understand is that the climate is currently also in a transient state that can lead to some effects from the ocean lagging the atmosphere.
Also, as I said before, this study says nothing about CO2 “trapping heat”, and maybe the press release was not written by the scientists, because that is a poor description of a radiative adjustment process, or they realized you can’t say radiative adjustment in a press release and tried to use something simpler.
For a model study, the interpretation is simple and makes qualitative sense. The paper is interesting for that, even if limited to being an academic exercise.
Pat
The link I gave in my post has a measured plot of the mid atmosphere temperatures. They are falling.
Theo Goodwin :
March 26, 2011 at 10:36 am
Of course I am serious. Data always trump models, and there exists no hot spot in the data. Irrespective of what might have produced it if it had existed, it does not exist. The authors propose a model that generates a hotspot, and that has been refuted by data , and the peer reviewers should have known the data.
Jim D says:
March 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm
davidmhoffer, did you read the part where they said>>>
Jim. Right from your very own quoted text:
” they are idealized mathematical functions designed to illustrate the fundamental physics that would be operative even at lower rates of radiative forcing changes”
Reads pretty clear. They built an impossible model to illustrate how lower rates (read “possible”) would operate. Total fantasy being used to predict reality.
“This is just an academic study to help understand the climate system better”>>>
This is a study of an impossible situation with made up data and no testing (not even an attempt) to verify by experiment. What conclusions can you draw about the actual climate from this? NONE! Its only value is to prove that you can fool some of the people all of the time. It has negative value because it cost public money, produced a meaningless result, has no value as science academic or not, confuses the media, the public, and the issues.
“The other important thing to understand is that the climate is currently also in a transient state that can lead to some effects from the ocean lagging the atmosphere.”>>>
Their fake climate or our real one? In our real one, ocean heat content has been in decline. Where the ocean goes, the atmosphere must at some point follow.
“Also, as I said before, this study says nothing about CO2 “trapping heat”, “>>>
The study clearly claimed the creation of a tropospheric hotspot that would dampen convection and affect precipitation as a result. Along with a step function that is impossible, data made up, synthesized by a computer program with no real world verification testing, they used a physical explanation that depends on the existance of a tropospheric hotspot. The one part of their model that is tied to something we can actually test for is that. Tested, doesn’t exist. What are we on now? Strike 7?
“For a model study, the interpretation is simple and makes qualitative sense. The paper is interesting for that, even if limited to being an academic exercise.”>>>
I created a computer program that simulated pink elephants. I created another program that calculated the amount of shadow a floating pink elephant would cast if they all floated at the top of the atmosphere. I then simulated the surface temperature with 1, 1 million, and 1 trillion elephants. Then I instantly doubled the number of elephants in each simulation. Then I instantly cut the number in half again.
In all cases of doubling the number of elephants over the known tax record and extrapolated into the future, the computer concluded that taxes will go up. When the elephants were reduced in number however, taxes went up even faster. However, that adds up to six different scenarios, each of which results in taxes going up. I predict on that basis that taxes will go up as high as double what they are now at some point in the future measured in decades to millenia. I ran the simulation 1,967,888 times and the results were the same every time which is proof. Also, politicians have been promising to cut taxes which is closely correlated with taxes going up, so this corroborates the elephant study.
Jim, I’m not being sarcastic to put you down. You sound like you’ve put some thought into this. Just not enough. My pink elephant study probably sounds absurd to you. It should. Just like a tax payer funded study, based on physical events that are impossible, in turn based on made up data, analyzed with a computer program with no normalization to actual testing, results from which are announced as being indicative of a real world result, and theorized based on an element of climate which has considerable data suggesting it doesn’t exist…should seem absurd to you.
All these replies, and not one has noticed that Al Gore declared the opposite result?
He very clearly said the “Scientists predicted” that increase Co2 would cause an increase in rain, which would explain (well, except for the “cold enough to create snow” part) why we had such insane snowstorms this last winter?
It feel to me like the next IPCC overview is going to have some serious problems, because AGW folks are now predicting both directions at the same time. It’s one thing, and an easy thing, to ignore skeptical contributions in the Peer Reviewed Literature, but it’s going to be pretty hard to acknowledge pro-AGW literature that come to opposite conclusions, and still say that the science is clearly understood.
I just returned from Saudi Arabia – they say climate is getting wetter in recent years, they had flooding in the normally arid Jeddah. There are reports of increasing rainfall in the Sahara also.
Wetdry is to be expected.
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
Temperature higher – soil moisture less
Temperature higher – soil moisture more
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
These people are a bunch of inept scam artists.
davidmhoffer, I am not going to say more about this. Academic studies are useful tests of these models and of our understanding of the climate system. To test things, one technique is to use extreme cases to make the signal clearer. I believe engineers do similar things when looking at responses of complex systems. That is all there is to say.
Interesting discussion between David and Jim. I believe it points out what I’ve come to see over and over again. AGW believers are not very good at critical thinking. That doesn’t mean they are stupid. Quite the contrary, Jim appears to be very bright. However, there is an art to critical thinking. You have to be skeptical by nature and you have to put in some real effort.
I believe that is why you see more skeptics are older. Through experience they have learned that you simply cannot accept anything at face value. Things are more complicated than it seems most of the time.
I also believe we all fall into the trap of simple thinking from time to time. It is difficult to always look deeply into everything we come across, especially when a topic is not that important to us.
Richard M, thanks for the “very bright” compliment. There is not a lack of critical thinking on my part. I was very skeptical of the press statement, which is why I looked further at the paper. Turns out the press statement was badly worded.
In other words, this was a case of a couple of science type old boys playing around with their x-boxes using highly improbable extreme cases.
So why the press release?
I’ll tell you why. All the predictions they’ve been making over the last 20 years or so has been trashed by mother nature. Folks in the suburbs are noticing this. So these old boys are now claiming that their x-boxes did and do predict the very weather we are now experiencing.
But because they are trying so hard, each new paper is becoming more ridiculous than the last. they are becoming laughing stock.
Shoots oneself in the foot.
“Aha you shot yourself in the foot.”
Shoots oneself in the other foot.
“No I didn’t, I shot myself in both feet.”
Jim D says:
March 27, 2011 at 7:08 am
davidmhoffer, I am not going to say more about this. Academic studies are useful tests of these models and of our understanding of the climate system. To test things, one technique is to use extreme cases to make the signal clearer. I believe engineers do similar things when looking at responses of complex systems. That is all there is to say.>>>>
Jim, why give up so easily? Allow me to share some of my background before I answer the statements above. I’m in high end technology, 30 years of it. Half my customers are either bleeding edge researchers or bleeding edge design engineers. Of the latter, about a third are either military or aerospace. I’ve sold to multiple companies producing products that were founded by the researchers I’d sold to when they were just researchers. I’ve even sold some of the products from those companies to military, aerospace, and commercial customers. So now please let me answer your “all there is to say”.
Academic studies are not “tests” of models.
Models ARE academic studies!
You can’t test one academic study by doing another academic study.
The only possible result that can come of doing so is to establish that the two academic studies are founded upon either the same, or else closely correlated assumptions.
The ONLY way to test an academic study for validity is to compare to the results of real world experimentation.
The ONLY way to test a model for validity is to compare to the results of real world experimentation.
“To test things, one technique is to use extreme cases to make the signal clearer.”
There is no such technique. Extreme cases don’t make the signal clearer as they amplify the noise as well. Extreme cases have only one purpose and that is to produce extreme results.
“I believe engineers do similar things when looking at responses of complex systems.”
And in that one sentence you reveal what it is that you don’t understand. Engineers do NO SUCH THING. THEY WOULD BE FIRED INSTANTLY AND HELD PERSONALY LIABLE FOR ANY DEATHS OR DAMAGE THAT RESULTS FROM THEIR WORK.
Engineers design systems based on known parameters and make assumptions upon unknown parameters. They model the expected behaviour of the system against those assumptions. THEN:
They build real working systems and do real world testing on them, THEN:
They compare the ACTUAL test results to the modeled results. THEN:
They investigate what the modeled results imply about what assumptions were correct, what assumptions were wrong, and what that new knowledge might suggest in terms of changing the design to result in a better design. THEN:
They change the design and model the new design, build a new test and compare to the model, and on and on and on until they have a design that does what it was supposed to do, a model of the design’s behaviour under as many circumtances as is reasonable, and actual testing to demonstrate that the design and the modeling of the design are BOTH accurate.
Jim, talk to some real engineers and you will find out I’m correct, you needn’t take my word for it. Your assumption that engineers work in the way you suggest is dead wrong to the point of it being professional misconduct and possibly subject to both civil and criminal law if they did. Once you understand that, you should see as well the absurdity of applying academic testing, of extreme cases or not, to academic models and producing any result at all that is of any use at all.
Here’s what they said in a nut shell:
1. We took a computer model of the real climate. It gets some things right and some things wrong and we don’t know why.
2. We made some changes to the data in the model that we know are physicaly impossible
3. We got results that we claim imply what the real climate would do under completely different circumstances.
4. We publish the results as meaningful for small changes in CO2 levels in the real world.
All they have actually done is to use one computer model, known to have many deficiencies, to produce results from two different data sets, both fictitious, to compare to each other. The value is ZERO because there is no testing to verify anything at any point.
davidmhoffer, yes, the models are tested and verified. You don’t believe civil engineers test stresses beyond what is expected? Do they do this for fun, or to learn something about the complex structures? Climate models are tested and improved by comparing with real data, and with common sense understanding. I don’t see how it differs from your concept of an engineering model. The paper shows an interesting, and not immediately obvious, result that rainfall would increase in the short term if you stepped down CO2. The result is plausible on physical grounds, and is of academic interest, if not yours, because it gives clues about how the climate system may operate. You seem to be saying that the climate system is too complex, and nobody should even be trying to understand it.
The wetdry climate change analogy is pure fantasy.
Most areas of the Earth go through wetter/drier years as a matter of cycles, and have done so for millenia.
How is this wetter/drier climate change conundrum any different than the previous climate disruption stuff? Not one bit.
Even worse, the outlier events currently all have historical counterparts.
The soapbox is stood upon prematurely, as all CO2 based soapboxes are.
Bottom line: AGW promises things that never materialize.
I’m quite sure that areas, that are neither very wet or dry, will be even more not too wet and not too dry if we increase CO2.
Jim D says:
March 27, 2011 at 3:02 pm
davidmhoffer, yes, the models are tested and verified. You don’t believe civil engineers test stresses beyond what is expected?>>>
YES! They test ACTUAL beams and take ACTUAL measurements to determine how much stress they can ACTUALLY take.
Which is the part you continue to not get. There is NO actual testing, verification, real world ANYTHING in this study! Do you really not get it? Or are you now being deliberately obtuse? Do what I suggested, go talk to some engineers. Ask them if it would be OK to simulate some beams and how much stress they can take, compare them at 100 degrees C and at 1,000,000 degrees C, all done with NO ACTUAL TESTING OF ANYTHING and then make recommendations on what size beam to use in a bridge.
“”””” New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao and Ken Caldeira offers a novel explanation for why climates are wetter when atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are decreasing. “””””
Does this important research paper happen to mention the ten most recent climate periods, when Atmospheric CO2 levels were decreasing; well how about the three most recent; what was the most recent period (climatic) of atmospheric CO2 level decrease ?
For extra credit; guess what these guys are smoking !
Maybe this was all a computer video game ?
Now I am aware of recent periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were decreasing. Specifically, since about Marxh of 1958, it was observed at mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, that the monthly average carbon dioxide concentration measured there was changing; specifically it was, at about a maximum level round about March give or take a month, and then fell by about 6 ppm in the next 3.5 to 5 months, and then it went back up again to reach a new maximum at about a one year interval. Continued observations of CO2 levels at Mauna Loa Observatory, have shown a fairly consistent repetition of this behavior.
However this sort of short term noise is not generally considered to be signigficant interest in climate studies, which require research grant funding over periods of about 30 years. Otherwise it is just considered weather.
Some observers have suggested that a pattern of this type, 4-5 months down and 7-8 months up is possibly due to the seasons; which recur on about this same 12 monthly cycle; so that is not really of any climate interest, but could affect rainfall patterns; which also is just weather.
“”””” davidmhoffer says:
March 27, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Jim D says:
March 27, 2011 at 3:02 pm
davidmhoffer, yes, the models are tested and verified. You don’t believe civil engineers test stresses beyond what is expected?>>>
YES! They test ACTUAL beams and take ACTUAL measurements to determine how much stress they can ACTUALLY take.
Which is the part you continue to not get. There is NO actual testing, verification, real world ANYTHING in this study! Do you really not get it? Or are you now being deliberately obtuse? Do what I suggested, go talk to some engineers. Ask them if it would be OK to simulate some beams and how much stress they can take, compare them at 100 degrees C and at 1,000,000 degrees C, all done with NO ACTUAL TESTING OF ANYTHING and then make recommendations on what size beam to use in a bridge. “””””
David, reportedly the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, was designed completely by computer simulation, without any actual engineering drawings being printed; let alone any sort of prototype testing of parts being done.
Of course; that plane has yet to get off the ground; well at least commercially; but it does fly.
George E. Smith;
David, reportedly the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, was designed completely by computer simulation, without any actual engineering drawings being printed; let alone any sort of prototype testing of parts being done.>>>
No one prints engineering docs anymore (for the most part) as for the rest, here’s some excerpts from the design processes that falsify that report:
During the design phase, the 787 underwent extensive wind tunnel testing at Boeing’s Transonic Wind Tunnel, QinetiQ’s five-meter wind tunnel at Farnborough, UK, and NASA Ames Research Center’s wind tunnel, as well as at the French aerodynamics research agency, ONERA
June 23, 2009, Boeing announced that the first flight is postponed “due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft
The company expects to write off US$2.5 billion because it considers the first three Dreamliners built unsellable and suitable only for flight tests
In early November 2010, it was reported that some early 787 deliveries may be delayed, in one case some three months, to allow for rework to address issues found during flight testing.
Boeing announced that the first 787 delivery was rescheduled to the third quarter of 2011 due to software and electrical updates following the in-flight fire in November 2010.[
On August 23, 2007, a crash test involving a vertical drop of a partial composite fuselage section from about 15 ft (4.6 m) onto a 1 in (25 mm)-thick steel plate occurred in Mesa, Arizona;[78][79] the results matched what Boeing’s engineers had predicted, allowing modeling of various crash scenarios using computational analysis instead of further physical tests.
A non-flight 787 test airframe was built for static testing, and on September 27, 2008, over a period of nearly two hours, the fuselage was successfully tested at 14.9 psi
On May 3, 2009, the first test 787 was moved to the flight line following extensive factory-testing, including landing gear swings, systems integration verification, and a total run-through of the first flight
On December 12, 2009, the first 787 completed high speed taxi tests, the last major step before flight
In June 2010, gaps were discovered in the horizontal stabilizers of test aircraft, due to improperly installed shims; all aircraft produced then were to be inspected and repaired
Boeing’s schedule called for a 9-month flight test campaign
On November 9, 2010, Boeing 787, ZA002 made an emergency landing after smoke and flames were detected in the main cabin during a test flight over Texas. The electrical fire caused some systems to fail before landing.[114] Following this incident, Boeing suspended flight testing on November 10, 2010. Ground testing has been performed instead
While Boeing had been working to trim excess weight since assembly of the first airframe began, common for new aircraft in development, the company has stated that the first six 787s will be overweight. Substantial redesign work is expected to correct this, which will complicate increases in production rates. Boeing expects to have the weight issues addressed by the 21st production model.[176]
————————-
That’s just a few examples George. Test, model, test again, model again, until they got models that could demonstrate accuracy via testing. Where the rumour came from that the plane was simply designed and it flew is beyond me. Note also, that is just the testing that BOEING did. A tremendous amount of what goes into a product like that is sub assemblies like engines for example. Boeing may have done no more on their side than document weight and horsepower and fitting locations, but that doesn’t mean Rolls Royce didn’t do extensive testing first.
I toured a Boeing composite plant a number of years ago and they were very pleased they’d shipped a prototype wing to another Boeing plant, and had just heard back that it bolted to the fuselage first time exactly as designed, no engineering changes required. It was the first time that had ever happened! No idea what model it was for, but the notion that any aircraft could be designed entirely electronicaly not only doesn’t hold water, but the changes required due to modeling that was wrong are STILL showing up and requiring more testing, modeling, testing, modeling to alleviate issues discovered in production.
“”””” davidmhoffer says:
March 28, 2011 at 1:06 pm
George E. Smith;
David, reportedly the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, “””””
“”””” reportedly “””””