One Piece Eps 337 Sub Indo Fast
By early afternoon on 1 June, officials with Air France and the French government had already presumed the aircraft had been lost with no survivors. An Air France spokesperson told L'Express that "no hope for survivors" remained, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced almost no chance existed for anyone to have survived. On 2 June at 15:20 (UTC), a Brazilian Air Force Embraer R-99A spotted wreckage and signs of oil, possibly jet fuel, strewn along a 5 km (3 mi; 3 nmi) band 650 km (400 mi; 350 nmi) north-east of Fernando de Noronha Island, near the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago. The sighted wreckage included an aircraft seat, an orange buoy, a barrel, and "white pieces and electrical conductors". Later that day, after meeting with relatives of the Brazilians on the aircraft, Brazilian Defence Minister Nelson Jobim announced that the Air Force believed the wreckage was from Flight 447. Brazilian vice-president José Alencar (acting as president since Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was out of the country) declared three days of official mourning.
One Piece Eps 337 Sub Indo Fast
Early on 6 June 2009, five days after Flight 447 disappeared, two male bodies, the first to be recovered from the crashed aircraft, were brought on board the Caboclo along with a seat, a nylon backpack containing a computer and vaccination card, and a leather briefcase containing a boarding pass for the Air France flight. Initially, media (including The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune) cited unnamed investigators in their reporting that the recovered bodies were naked, which implied the plane had broken up at high altitude. However, the notion that the aircraft fragmented while airborne ultimately was refuted by investigators. At this point, on the evidence of the recovered bodies and materials, investigators confirmed the plane had crashed, killing everyone on board. The following day, 7 June, search crews recovered the Airbus's vertical stabilizer, the first major piece of wreckage to be discovered. Pictures of this part being lifted onto the Constituição became a poignant symbol of the loss of the Air France craft.[page needed]
The debris field was described as "quite compact", measuring 200 by 600 metres (660 by 1,970 ft) and a short distance north of where pieces of wreckage had been recovered previously, suggesting the aircraft hit the water largely intact. The French Ecology and Transportation Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet stated the bodies and wreckage would be brought to the surface and taken to France for examination and identification. The French government chartered the Île de Sein to recover the flight recorders from the wreckage. An American Remora 6000 remotely operated vehicle (ROV)[g] and operations crew from Phoenix International experienced in the recovery of aircraft for the United States Navy were on board the Île de Sein.
The final BEA report points to the human-computer interface (HCI) of the Airbus as a possible factor contributing to the crash. It provides an explanation for most of the pitch-up inputs by the pilot flying, left unexplained in the Popular Mechanics piece: namely that the flight director display was misleading. The pitch-up input at the beginning of the fatal sequence of events appears to be the consequence of an altimeter error. The investigators also pointed to the lack of a clear display of the airspeed inconsistencies, though the computers had identified them. Some systems generated failure messages only about the consequences, but never mentioned the origin of the problem. The investigators recommended a blocked pitot tube should be clearly indicated as such to the crew on the flight displays. The Daily Telegraph pointed out the absence of AoA information, which is so important in identifying and preventing a stall. The paper stated, "though angle of attack readings are sent to onboard computers, there are no displays in modern jets to convey this critical information to the crews." Der Spiegel indicated the difficulty the pilots faced in diagnosing the problem: "One alarm after another lit up the cockpit monitors. One after another, the autopilot, the automatic engine control system, and the flight computers shut themselves off." Against this backdrop of confusing information, difficulty with aural cognition (due to heavy buffeting from the storm, as well as the stall) and zero external visibility, the pilots had less than three minutes to identify the problem and take corrective action. The Der Spiegel report asserts that such a crash "could happen again".
While the quality of temperature measurements obtained through ground observational networks tends to be high compared to that of measurements for other climate variables (Seneviratne et al., 2012)56, it should be noted that some regions are undersampled. Cowtan and Way (2014)57 highlighted issues regarding undersampling, which is most problematic at the poles and over Africa, and which may lead to biases in estimated changes in GMST (see also Supplementary Material 3.SM.2 and Chapter 1). This undersampling also affects the confidence of assessments regarding regional observed and projected changes in both mean and extreme temperature. Despite this partly limited coverage, the attribution chapter of AR5 (Bindoff et al., 2013a)58 and recent papers (e.g., Sun et al., 2016; Wan et al., 2018)59 assessed that, over every continental region and in many sub-continental regions, anthropogenic influence has made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century.
For heavy precipitation, AR5 (Hartmann et al., 2013)101 assessed that observed trends displayed more areas with increases than decreases in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation (likely). In addition, for land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for evaluation, it was assessed that there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century (Bindoff et al., 2013a)102.
The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale, but that there was high confidence in observed trends in some regions of the world, including drought increases in the Mediterranean and West Africa and drought decreases in central North America and northwest Australia (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013)124. AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a)125.
Summer sea ice in the Arctic has been retreating rapidly in recent decades. During the period 1997 to 2014, for example, the monthly mean sea ice extent during September (summer) decreased on average by 130,000 km per year (Serreze and Stroeve, 2015)259. This is about four times as fast as the September sea ice loss during the period 1979 to 1996. Sea ice thickness has also decreased substantially, with an estimated decrease in ice thickness of more than 50% in the central Arctic (Lindsay and Schweiger, 2015)260. Sea ice coverage and thickness also decrease in CMIP5 simulations of the recent past, and are projected to decrease in the future (Collins et al., 2013)261. However, the modelled sea ice loss in most CMIP5 models is much smaller than observed losses. Compared to observations, the simulations are less sensitive to both global mean temperature rise (Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017)262 and anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Notz and Stroeve, 2016)263. This mismatch between the observed and modelled sensitivity of Arctic sea ice implies that the multi-model-mean responses of future sea ice evolution probably underestimates the sea ice loss for a given amount of global warming. To address this issue, studies estimating the future evolution of Arctic sea ice tend to bias correct the model simulations based on the observed evolution of Arctic sea ice in response to global warming. Based on such bias correction, pre-AR5 and post-AR5 studies generally agree that for 1.5C of global warming relative to pre-industrial levels, the Arctic Ocean will maintain a sea ice cover throughout summer in most years (Collins et al., 2013; Notz and Stroeve, 2016; Screen and Williamson, 2017; Jahn, 2018; Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018; Sigmond et al., 2018)264. For 2C of global warming, chances of a sea ice-free Arctic during summer are substantially higher (Screen and Williamson, 2017; Jahn, 2018; Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018; Screen et al., 2018; Sigmond et al., 2018)265. Model simulations suggest that there will be at least one sea ice-free Arctic8 summer after approximately 10 years of stabilized warming at 2C, as compared to one sea ice-free summer after 100 years of stabilized warming at 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures (Jahn, 2018; Screen et al., 2018; Sigmond et al., 2018)266. For a specific given year under stabilized warming of 2C, studies based on large ensembles of simulations with a single model estimate the likelihood of ice-free conditions as 35% without a bias correction of the underlying model (Sanderson et al., 2017; Jahn, 2018)267; as between 10% and >99% depending on the observational record used to correct the sensitivity of sea ice decline to global warming in the underlying model (Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018)268; and as 19% based on a procedure to correct for biases in the climatological sea ice coverage in the underlying model (Sigmond et al., 2018)269. The uncertainty of the first year of the occurrence of an ice-free Arctic Ocean arising from internal variability is estimated to be about 20 years (Notz, 2015; Jahn et al., 2016)270.
[Section 3.3.3; AR5 Chapter 10 (Bindoff et al., 2013a) 364]Increases in frequency, intensity and/or amount heavy precipitation when averaged over global land, with positive trends in several regions (high confidence) 350c69d7ab