> 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.
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.
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.