4 ms·

I think it is an unclear and bizarre term. “The energy contained in one group” - what energy? Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant? Why? Or do you l

I think it is an unclear and bizarre term. “The energy contained in one group” - what energy? Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant? Why? Or do you literally mean energy like calories (which, IIRC means “how much heat if burned”). What a bizarre metric, nobody thinks like this, I don’t even think “ecologists” understand why they should think in terms of mass. I, too, can have a metric: number of decibels of sound you can produce; maybe humans make up a SHOCKING 3% on that- doesn’t mean it’s a sensible metric.

pvaldes 4y ago
> “The energy contained in one group” - what energy? The chemical energy contained in the links of the molecules > Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant? Yes, of course. One cheetah, has less biomass than one elephant. But -the- rats, have more biomass than -the- elephants. Is the beauty of the ecology. > What a bizarre metric, nobody thinks like this, I don’t even think “ecologists” understand why they should think in terms of mass. Well, this sounds a little arrogant. The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid. Would be like claiming that programmers don't understand why they use an if loop. Biomass is a measure as widespread in ecology as Megabytes is in computers. And there is not need to use quotes around the word ecologists, in the same way as you wouldn't wrote: the "engineers" or the "programmers". > I, too, can have a metric: number of decibels of sound you can produce; maybe humans make up a SHOCKING 3% on that- doesn’t mean it’s a sensible metric. Well, the difference is that nobody uses your metric.
- club_tropical 4y ago
  > The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid. I will not defer to authority. I want an explanation for why the percentage of aggregate “chemical energy contained in the links of molecules” is considered a meaningful metric for anything other than “how much percentage heat would I produce if i threw them into a fire”, let alone mammal population health or diversity. > Well, the difference is that nobody uses your metric. Correct, because it is not meaningful, and neither is biomass.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - abdullahkhalids 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)
  - mahogany 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward this idea... I know basically nothing about ecology, but it seems relatively straightforward to think of reasons to study biomass. Think about food chains. Food is energy is biomass (as you mention). At a basic level: if you know that a certain ratio of biomass is needed (or expected) between two stages in a chain, then you can keep tabs on one of those stages, and when you see biomass decreasing, it's a signal that the food chain might be soon disrupted. In a food chain, the number of animals seems mostly irrelevant (except in cases of near-extinction), but the total energy is highly relevant.

pvaldes 4y ago

> “The energy contained in one group” - what energy? The chemical energy contained in the links of the molecules > Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant? Yes, of course. One cheetah, has less biomass than one elephant. But -the- rats, have more biomass than -the- elephants. Is the beauty of the ecology. > What a bizarre metric, nobody thinks like this, I don’t even think “ecologists” understand why they should think in terms of mass. Well, this sounds a little arrogant. The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid. Would be like claiming that programmers don't understand why they use an if loop. Biomass is a measure as widespread in ecology as Megabytes is in computers. And there is not need to use quotes around the word ecologists, in the same way as you wouldn't wrote: the "engineers" or the "programmers". > I, too, can have a metric: number of decibels of sound you can produce; maybe humans make up a SHOCKING 3% on that- doesn’t mean it’s a sensible metric. Well, the difference is that nobody uses your metric.

club_tropical 4y ago
> The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid. I will not defer to authority. I want an explanation for why the percentage of aggregate “chemical energy contained in the links of molecules” is considered a meaningful metric for anything other than “how much percentage heat would I produce if i threw them into a fire”, let alone mammal population health or diversity. > Well, the difference is that nobody uses your metric. Correct, because it is not meaningful, and neither is biomass.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)
- mahogany 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward this idea... I know basically nothing about ecology, but it seems relatively straightforward to think of reasons to study biomass. Think about food chains. Food is energy is biomass (as you mention). At a basic level: if you know that a certain ratio of biomass is needed (or expected) between two stages in a chain, then you can keep tabs on one of those stages, and when you see biomass decreasing, it's a signal that the food chain might be soon disrupted. In a food chain, the number of animals seems mostly irrelevant (except in cases of near-extinction), but the total energy is highly relevant.