Espectro (DayZ)

Put up a trigger and in activationfield: "settacctime x" Where x is the constant u wanna multiplide the time

Voting is only allowed when no admin is logged in. You can test if there is an admin logged in by typing "#userlist". If there is an admin it will show one of the players as: 21 Espectro (Admin) If my gamesession ID is 21.

The two things that make life possible on our planet are the atmosphere and the moon. The atmosphere keeps us at a temperature that can sustain life while the moon stops us from wobbling out of orbit and loosing our 24hour day/night regularity. But sustainable does not mean that global temperatures and climate in general remain at a level constant. There will always be big ups and downs. Some things will survive while others won’t. Just take a look at history. Open your eyes or do some studying you might even learn something new! I appreciate that being told that there maybe an alternative truth to the constant propaganda that we are being fed is a hard pill to swallow and I accept it affects some folk differently to others! Ehhh... But if the climate system on this planet wasn't made up by a huge amount of buffers, the climate would go BANANAS! If you would open your eyes and ears and READ what I posted and READ what yourself posted, you might learn something new Edit, cut it out in paper, here is an example of what might be the most important buffer system that regulates the athmosphere and thereby the climate on Earth: Oceanic Carbon diaxide buffer. "The crustal Urey cycle of CO2 involving silicate weathering and metamorphism acts as a dynamic climate buffer. In this cycle, warmer temperatures speed silicate weathering and carbonate formation, reducing atmospheric CO2 and thereby inducing global cooling. Over long periods of time, cycling of CO2 into and out of the mantle also dynamically buffers CO2. In the mantle cycle, CO2 is outgassed at ridge axes and island arcs, while subduction of carbonatized oceanic basalt and pelagic sediments returns CO2 to the mantle. Negative feedback is provided because the amount of basalt carbonatization depends on CO2 in seawater and therefore on CO2 in the air." Which basically means, the more CO2 in the air, the faster it can be absorbed into the ocean. The simple reason is because of the pressure difference. Like any other diffusion the diffusion speed will be the gradient of these two. The system will try to maintain balance. The problem comes, when the buffer system will get too slow compared to the concentration in the athmosphere. Too bad it doesn't stop here, though. As the CO2 rise in the athmospheare is slowed down due to this buffer, the CO2 concentration in the ocean is much higher than ever before. This means a change of the chemistry layout of our oceans. The following qoutes are from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). Further more, the co2 buffer system of the ocean has saved us so far, but the ocean generally mix badly, which means that it isn't the entire ocean that is affected by the CO2 concentration, it is actually only the 10% top layer of it. It will take thousind of years to mix the entire sea. This means that the CO2 buffer system is already slowing down, rendering it pretty useless in the future. Not in many years, the top layer of the ocean will be so acid, that only very few animals can live in it, and the athmosphear will be full of CO2 as well. It's the beginning of a slow oceanic death followed by the rest of the planet as many animals (including humans) use the oceanic ressources to survive. Red Kite (and others human-generated global warming critics), don't you worry about what the CO2 rise can cause to our planet? Don't you worry that in the last 30 years, the CO2 rise have been the eqvalent of your average iceage? Take a look on this graph of CO2 levels the past 400.000 years:

In that case the 'CO2 buffer' has not functioned many times in our geological history either, and I quote walker: This assumption that our climate has always been stable and self-levelling is probably one of the biggest misconceptions of this whole debate! Ehhhh, what? If it wasn't self-leveling there would be no such thing as life on this planet. Jesus Red Kite, you are killing me! Or maybe you simply believe God is responsible for climate regulation!?

One more thing, rifle tracer in reality doesn't look so much as "lines", that is only the effect of slow camera fps. I always found it weird in OFP that the tracers looked like lines. Larges arms fire such as the mounted guns does tend to look like lines, though, as the velocity is much faster.

The video u provided have already been posted here. I can still not take it serously as it hypes their oppinions up, and hides data away that isn't 'convenient'. Red Kite: Lol, of course the CO2 incriese isn't entirely man-made, but as stated several times now, it's a positive feedback system. If you produce more CO2, the sea will eventually heat up thus producing more CO2. The eco-system, probably has an enormious buffersystem, which means that we can produce much more CO2 on the planet than it's natural limit without any problems. But as we know, buffersystems tend (always) to have limits as well, and when that limit is crossed, we will be seing signifficant climate changes over a small period time which makes the planet produce more CO2 by itself and the balance is tipped over. This means that the CO2 buffer wont function anymore, and we will be seing CO2 levels rise at an exponential rate. By then it will probably already be too late to do anything about it. That is why we have to do something about it now.

You do fail to mention that solar activity does not explain the last three decades, though. I think we all are aware of the link between temperature rise and solar activity as seen the past many hundred years - but the last three decades do not have this link, why? In a closed system (Vostock), CO2 clearly holds the energy in the 'athmosphear', and as Earth athmosphear (if seen in a shorter period of time) does work as a closed system with the sun as the energy source, the Vostock experiement is quite telling. The question is, why does Earth holds more energy compared to solar activity now, than it did earlier when the CO2 levels were lower?

Love ya metaphore - permission to steal ?

I doubt software algorythms is stored on papyrus rolls or old engravings, which this thread is about . banks of old floppy disks and CD's could melt as well as Alexandria's papyrus roll burnt Yep, but now we are back at square one... popular information post 1950 is widespread in homes/companies etc. Why are you talking about papyrus rolls anyway?

Ive now seen half of the movie so far (will see the rest later). I do find it pretty interesting that sunspot activity would be the major role in temperature rise. This can also be seen for the past 500 years in the movie. But as Walker pointed out, we are now adding CO2 into the athmosphear which have the capacity of holding energy on the planet, instead of releasing it. The movie so war seemed pretty reasonable, but there were a few things that struck me. For example, when they presented the Danish scientist Eigil-Friis Christensen sunspot recordings, they matched almost perfectly - but why did they stop plotting the sunspot activity after 1978? Well, after looking on the internet for the actual numbers, it was quite clear... The sunspot activities decline while the temperature actually rises more than it have done so the past 300 years - and it keeps rising for three decades until now, and it probably will keep rising. If I was to use the logic presented in that film, I would quickly conclude, that sunspot activity CANNOT control the temperature on this planet. I will not, however, come with such drastic conclusions as that mainstream video. However, I must admit, the solar activity seem to have a large impact of temperature. But I don't think the 'scientists' in this video have quite understood how much a small consistent temperature rise can do, and how much a small CO2 addition actually can produce? Let's say, hypothetically, that the temperature rise and fall until 1975 was cause by solar activity. After this, solar activity have been quite normal and shouldn't cause an incriese in temperature. However, we are not in 1750 anymore, and the athmosphere have alot of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in it. This means that some of the energy from the recent high solar activity is stored in the athmosphear, cause a small rise in the athmospheare. This rise results in a small rise in ocean temperature which therefor gives us a positive feedback system giving more CO2 to the athmosphear which then stores energy from the now normal solar activity which then again gives a small temperature rise etc. A very simplistic view on the things, but that seems to be the logical thing that is happening. Small changes in various parts of the climate giving a positive feedback system. One thing about the movie... I know that if I at my university was to publish data and deliberately left out data which would put my theories to pieces, I would never be taken serious again //Edit. Here is an example of how CO2 changes temperature in a closed system, this is called the Vostock demonstration (remember this is a simulation with a stable solar activity): (Upper one is CO2 (parts of a million), lower one is reconstruction of atmospheric temperature from measurements of the isotope Deuterium. ). (Source - http://www.aip.com) Imagine this energy-holding capability multiplied by extra solar activity. Stating that CO2 has absolutely no impact on temperature is ignorant

Did you read the thread? It was PR stunt to get more donors.

It seems pretty smart with the reloadability, but I would prefer the AT4 CS, though. It CAN be fired in relatively small confined spaces. I haven't tried the AT4 CS, but ive fired the ordinary AT4 many times, and the weight have never been a problem. I was actually VERY surprised how light the AT4 really is. The recoil is extremely hard on that thing (the price of no backsplash), but I think that is too much, and probably will affect future aiming, and a couple bruises if you are sitting indoor or in a vehicle during an adrenalin filled fight. Another disadvantage is that it is reloadable - that means that if the enemy gets hold of it, they only need ammo to make it functioning. Nowadays NATO enemies also hardly use armour, so I can actually only see that this weapon would be a nice asset for the terror groups down in Iraq for example - pretty much suits their tactics. I believe TMGs etc. are much better than a missile in stopping pickups etc. 1 good thing about it, though, is that it's soo quiet.

Since this was addressed at me, I'll bite Well, advertising and PR is very VERY subjective. To the "average joe" who hasn't been spoilt by the last 6 years of OFP, ArmA is indeed the "ultimate combat sim". NOT because of the content, but because of what you can do WITH the content. (Massive maps - matched only by flightsims and similar, ability to use anything ingame etc etc) Its the same way gillette mach 3 razors are called "the ultimate shave" or any product is called "the ultimate [whatever]" Its subjective, and its advertising hype. To get sucked in by it, and to build your expectations to an unreasonable level is simply naive. Plus, it would never stand up in court Might stand trial in the US

HAHAHAHA I loved the RPG, whenever he fired it was kinda just dropping to the floor ;D

Yeo, come on forward, lads

Yea, most danes are organ donors, but they could always use some more, though ;/

OK mate! I'll let you guys go on beleiving the greatest lie of the century! Good luck! Meanwhile I'll stick to scientific facts and my own research and intuition! Kind regards, Red kite! I sure hope you don't use the same arguments in your research

But your explanation just doesn't make sense. If following your logic, the planet would be the warmest ever since we have the highest CO2 level around. It doesn't hold water. I am also critical about these studies, simply because for every study that figures out something dramatically, some other group find the opposit. For example, a recent study from the Epica team revealed that by analysing data in ice dating 650.000 years back, they concluded, and I qoute: "We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker. "The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation." CO2 might not be the biggest contributor to global warming, but we as a race, must decrease global warming, instead of expanding it. It probably is a lost cause, but we can decrease the impact of it, by slowing it down and making the world ready for the water rise etc. We are not capable of controlling solar activity, but we damn sure can stop contributing with the various greenhouse gasses.

That doesn't say anything at all. It doesn't explain why we have the highest CO2 level ever on this planet dating thousinds of years back. As seen on you beautifull graph, it doesn't explain why we have this sudden incline in CO2 and temperature levels since the industrial age. And finally, I don't really see too much correalation between the two. The biggest rise in solar activity actually happends AFTER the big rise in CO2 (around 1940 (can't really see)). And to be honest, that graph is taken out of context, why not present one that are much older, say a couple 1000 years or more - then we can use it for something. A 100 year statistic can't be used when we are talking about global warming, as the planet is much more complex that we can ever imagine, and there is bound to be several random factors that we cannot comprehend. Global warming IS connected to CO2, and we are responsible for much of it!

I doubt software algorythms is stored on papyrus rolls or old engravings, which this thread is about .

True, but the big difference between now and 300 years ago, is that almost everybody have books and are able to read. This is the informational age, which means it is quite different than before. The books isn't stored in one place, but are placed in millions of homes.

We know pyramids aswell, and they´ve lasted .. but the question is how things like that were achieved in the first place. Reminds me of roman cement, which was invented & forgotten hundreds of years before someone came up with the same idea again. Of course people will remember how much of an aid computers are/were, but how would you wanna know how they worked if everything describing the science of it was saved on computer hardwahre which by that time will be rotten As said, the computer languages (tools) used to create these programs are all stored in various books around the world. It wont be lost.

Why even have a thread when theres obviously nothing for the public?

We have had 9 heat-record months in Denmark the last 10 months. If that is a hoax - they people behind it must have some agreement with god

I dont know... In Denmark organ donation isn't discussed more than before. But I do think it's good that we still have ethics and people still can be upset about so unethical shows .