Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

ems, first thanks for clearing up the patent thing. Clearly I misinterpreted your post.

ems & dd: I only put foam on the sides, but down to a level below frost line. That is quite addequate to keep area under floor isolated and useful for heat storage as a component of the interior space. Now the but. Other people have run foam insolation under the entire slab. Nothing I can come up with supports that, but I could be missing something. Perhaps they avoided the cost of a foundation running to the frost line and use the foam insolation to keep the floor in the interior system and let the ground under freeze. That was not what I wanted. So my 2" foam sits next to the foundation 4' deep and 8' runs on exposed edges (two sides are up against my shop building ('L' shaped). The warm walls added to the shop reduced my gas bill and the warm walls on the greenhouse reduce the heat loss there. The first win-win for me in a long time.

ems, I like your tank plan.

Hayden & ems: I differ with some forum members on how mankind should proceed. Reducing technology, or cutting back on production is not what I think is required. Making things more efficient is always good. Using power to grow food is good as long as the expense/benefit ratio makes sense. Technology is the key to solving our future energy/environment problems. Conserving is good; wasting is bad. But the proper utilization of large amounts of power can be good too. The curves that show our planet warming (so called global warming) exactly track 'global warming' on Mars. Is it CO2 & greenhouse gasses on Mars due to our rovers(solar powered BTW)...NO! The warming here and on Mars is due to solar activity. The greenhouse gas alarmist have not made their case. Go for it ems. Lots of nice salads makes the long winters a little better. True in Michigan as well.

Ahhhhh. So i am not the only one who has heard of Timothy Ball and his work in regards to CO2 as a major greenhouse gas being completely ludicrous.

Doug I'm sorry but I really must correct you on that statement....

The Martian atmosphere (as measured by the 1976 Viking landers) comprises 95.3% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, 0.13% oxygen, 0.07% carbon monoxide and 0.03% water vapour.

The surface pressue of the Martian atmosphere is only 0.7% of the earths atmosphere, which changes seasonally because the temperature is cold enough (below freezing point of water) that some of the carbon dioxide freezes during winter and "snows" on to the polar caps.

During summer the polar caps warm up and the carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere.....

This is the only atmospheric equivalent to a "greenhouse effect" in the Martian atmosphere and is so realtively weak that the temperature on Mars only varies by 5 degrees annually....remeber that's above the freezing point of carbon dioxide.

To my knowledge, nobody is undertaking any regular measurement of greenhouse affects on the Martian atmosphere and have never done so.

Secondly... the last ten years has been one of the quietest periods of solar activity for many decades, even for the normally cyclic low activity phase which we have been in.

There are many and varied articles in literature and on the net which will substantiate my claims... as an aside I have been an avid astronomer for over 35 years and was a trained and accredited astronomer at my home town observatory in charge of public viewing nights for over 15 years.





I am incredulous that there remains some people that cling to the assertion that the overwealming majority of climatic and meterologic scientist would in some way risk their scientific reputations to either mislead, mis-interprete or mis-represent scientific data and papers to represent a "false" premise of global warming.....

For what purpose would they do so????

Am I personnaly convinced that carbon dioxide is the sole and only cause of global warming??....

No, and even Timothy Ball concedes that the earth has warmed and that this may be part of a natural process/cycle.....

However, while I believe that the earth has an incredible ability to buffer itself and maintain an equilibrium, as measured over time, I am concerned that mans intervention and effect on that normal cycle may result in a delayed natural correction which could have disasterous consequences for mankind.

And I believe that this is what in fact is being said by the majority of the scientist in the field..... that mans influence may have exceeded natures ability to correct and balance as quickly as it may have done so in the past and the effect on mankind may be detremental befoe nature rights the balance.

If people want to worry, there are plenty of senarios. Within reason, I will do what I want to do. My values are good and I see no reason not to enjoy myself...like AP.

Perhaps the super volcanoe at Yellowstone will blow or the oceans will warm enough to release a hugh amount of methane (real greenhouse gas problem). I am going to make things good for the Basberg family and enjoy our accomplishments. I do not like the direction people in general and the government more specifically are going, but, so far, I have enough elbow room to adjust my little kingdom to be a really nice place to be and that will have to do. There are a lot of nice people (many on this forum). I enjoy discussing AP and usually we can avoid religion, politics, and other things we may not all agree on. That is almost unique amoung forums. Bravo, for the way this one is run!

Amen to that Doug... and everyone has a right to their opinion...

and if ever I have to fight, that is the only thing I will fight for... even if I don't agree with you LOL

Having commented on solar activity, I neglected to add that although in a particularly low period of activity there was on December 6, 2006 a solar flare which produced one of the most massive and intense solar radio bursts ever recorded... caused large numbers of GPS receivers to mistrack and/or malfuction.

Solar flare activity is still a relatively new and unknown field of study in relation to the effect on earths climatology....

However ithe effect of sloar radio bursts are known to some degree and with the ever increasing dependance on satellites for commerce, communication, aviation guidence etc....

They may ultimately pose more of a threat to humanity than global warming.

Scientists are looking at links between solar activity, ozone layer depletion and polar ice-cap melting.... who knows how much of a contributing factor to warming this may end up being recorded in history

Doug:

You can see my system in http://www.backyardaquaponics.com/forum ... ght=julien
Not the same scale than yours obviously.

Montreal is not Alaska cold but it is Michigan cold

You are asking why leave the natural gaz there. I am answering why not?

I want to leave my children an earth in at least as good a shape as I got it. The simple truth is that nobody knows with certity how earth works. Other than for stating actual observations and short term extrapolations, I see all those people making definitive statements about anything environment as fools - on both sides.

I don't know what will be the long term effect of what I am doing and I don't want my children or my grand children to find out that I screwed up. So I would rather be overly cautious.

When assessing my impact on the environment I like simple system cycles that I can understand more easily. I can understand the likely long term impact of oil producing plants growing, being processes, used as cooking oil, reused as biodiesel and the whole process cycling in one or 2 years. This is not unlike AP. And yes there will likely be some "bad" things in that cycle.

It is more difficult for me to understand the consequences of suddenly unleashing chemicals that has been stored and held over thousands of years.

Could using alternative energy be a big screw up compared to other solutions? Maybe, but that is not likely in my opinion.

There is another reason for me to be interested in so call alternative energy. I have a 50 acres wood lot. If I can figure out a way to grow my own energy, I can be self sufficient, and so can my children and my children children and that is my utlimate goal.

Also many people see reducing greenhouse gas as something that will be painful. It is not necessary so. Point in case. I used to have to fly thousands of miles to go on customer sites to install software. Now I can do it remotely thanks to the internet. This resulted in better quality of life for me and my familly, cheaper cost to the client, increased profits to my employer because I waste less time travelling and I don't know how many tons of pollutent reduction because I don't have to fly anymore. Change does not have to be bad. Changing our thinking will be the most painful part, the rest will follow.

RUP said


This thing happens regularly (not often just regularly) in science. The most recent example that I have was when a researcher about 25 years ago found evidence of lamarkian inheritance.
Lamarkian inheritance was "completely" debunked over 150 years ago and since then the entire concept of inheritance and hence evolution theory, ecology and almost everything else in biology has been based on the premise of inheritance only occuring through the germ line. When he first aired his conlcusion he was ridiculed. When he presented his evidence and research he was very cruelly treated and basically run out of the scientific community. Fortunately one senior researcher eventually believed his research and after much effort they managed to conduct more research and eventually present more evidence and gradually convince others of their findings until about a year or to ago when it was finally published in a serious journal (Nature I think).

The reason this sort of thing happens is because:


As to global warming and whether we have pushed the system too far I really don't think so. Around 535 there is a mass of evidence to suggest that a massive volcanoe blew its stack (look at photos of Krackatoa crater, see the big bay next to it? That is though to be the crater.). The result was the equivilent of a nuclear winter for 3 years and disturbed weather paterns and climate for several decades. The planet recovered. We have got a long way to go before we have pushed things to that extreeme.

Rupert, thanks for more information to consider on global warming. I think the evidence that we have global warming is overwhelming. It is the cause that is very much up for debate. Some people consider mankind an 'unnatural' abomination fouling the wonderful natural world. I have a much higher opinion of mankind. Some would have us greatly curtail our industry and live a 'zero impact' lifestyle. Again I disagree. It is the idea that our emmisions are the cause of global warming that is not well supported. It was a peer reviewed scientific paper that I read that said warming on mars is tracking warming on earth.

The problem for a person not an expert in the many fields necessary is how much highly credentialed scientists disagree. That means to me that 'we still do not know the answers'. Taking massive action like curtailing industry on that bases seems premature.

As far as risking reputations go, many of my friends are scientists that live or die (professionally) based on not refuting the peer review cliques that form and tend to put massive pressure on the direction. Right now the hype and pressure groups are more interested in scaring the public into spending more on their field of study than on discussing both sides. I have just stopped subscribing to 'Scientific American' due to their continued and obvious bias and one sided editorials.

This has to stop. This does not belong on ems's topic. I will not go off topic again. And I need to appologize for as much as I already have
Let's talk fish and veggies, AP.

I agree. Can the administrator move all related posts on this subject to the Neo-Malthusian versus Cornucopian thread?? That way when we look at ems's system we aren't sifting through pages of debate? Thank you.

Doug no apologies. I wanted to jump in on this subject myself as I have some strong beliefs about this, but as you pointed out, it was OT. So I took it upon myself to start a new thread. Essentially what you folks are debating is the avoidance of the Malthusian Catastrophe by sustainable living or technology. Technologists are cornucopian in theory, therefore the thread is Cornucopian versus Neo-Malthusian....which one are you?

Administrator, please move this post as well. Thank you.

OK....I had a Berkeley professor (Deborah Howell) who introduced me to this concept years ago, and to this day I believe this is the hair to be split amongst us in regard to global warming and outpacing what has come to be known as the Malthusian Catastrophe.

Although global warming was not a specific part of Malthus theory, it is most definately applicable to the concept of outstripping natural resources due to population explosion.

Neo-Malthusians believe the solution lies in sustainable living and not consuming more energy than the natural world can replenish.

Cornucopians believe continued progress and provision of material items for mankind can be met by advances in technology. Fundamentally there is enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide plenty for the estimated peak population of about 9 billion in 2050. Looking further into the future the abundance of matter, energy and real-estate in space would appear to give humanity almost unlimited room for growth.



Disclaimer: Global Warming has to be accepted as a truth in this debate. The cause and source of it is not up for debate. Let's not get caught up in pointing fingers as much as trying to discuss solutions. This is not a scientific debate....more on sorting out the barriers and differences among us.

Ready, set, go.....

I will give my two cents -

Ultimately I believe I am a neo-Malthusian. I don't believe our world can support 9 billion people, and certainly not that many automobiles. Eventually we have to do 1 of 2 things.... start walking or bicycling, or creating zero emissions vehicles. Even then that will not gurantee avoidance of a global natural catastrophy. The world is terminally entropic as is the universe. Can we migrate to outer space? That is what cornucopians ultimately believe and where they/we are headed. Can we do it before the world is depleted or disaster strikes? All unknowns.

That being said, we will have to become a global co-op for sharing food resources if we were to support that many people. But that would necessitate the eradication of greed amongst those in power. I don't see that as realistic because it will lead to war and factions between the haves and the have nots. The only way we can accomplish shared resources is to shed destructive belief systems and become monastic.

Monasticism does not have to be solitary. It can be community. It takes a purposeful consciousness and awareness to know that we as a population upon this earth have the abilty to live within our means and not have to compete.

Unfortuantely I am filled with pessimism that one or more persons will not be satisfied wih a natural peacefull existence and will have to rise up and embrace the Cornucopian theory that we can have our cake and eat it to!
Greed is our downfall.

So it's optimism vs pessimism then? I have always been a futurist, so I have optimism that science if researched and developed and deployed well can solve many if not most of our problems. Do I think that the spaceship we reside on will take abuse and ask for more, from people who aren't interested in efficiency and who crap all over the planet then no and if those people are in charge then I'm pessimistic.

Aside - James Watt, a man before his time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

Rather than comment further here and hope a moderator moves it, I am going to the new topic to post.

ems, all this is an aside. I like your system and your thinking and I will be watching your topic.

A real AP question...with the bubles between two layers; do they have bubble material that does not foul the light flow and how quickly can the bubbles be removed to gain from good amounts of solar energy when present? I will read more, but it would be a long while before I know as much as you about it (if ever). Thus these questions.