Yes! But they are still on the surface, which means their carbon is not "trapped", it is still in cycle.
I have to point out a big FAIL for chemistry.
Carbon atoms (element C, solid at STP) may be present in hydrocarbons, but that does not mean they can therefore contribute to climate change/global
warming/whatever the hell they call it now, or indeed the carbon cycle (which incidentally requires the carbon to be in CO2 form in gaseous state in
the atmosphere to meet the MMGW definition). Carbon never has, can or will contribute to MMGW.
It's like saying oxygen contributes to MMGW, but you'll never hear this mentioned despite the fact there are two atoms of oxygen in every molecule of
CO2 (a colorless, odorless gas at STP), vs. the one of carbon.
This is why "they" shortened any references to CO2 in the MMGW context to "carbon", to hide the small detail of two oxygen atoms being involved.
I point this out because regardless of where the carbon is (100 miles underground, on the surface, or in the air), unless it is in that evil form CO2
AND in the atmosphere in gaseous form, then according to MMGW doctrine, its impact on the climate is nil.
If we were to truly discuss the carbon cycle
, then we would have to reference Methane and Carbon Monoxide as well, but I haven't seen these
referenced when discussing the carbon cycle (the mantra being that carbon dioxide is part of the carbon cycle, CO2 causes MMGW and, by inference,
carbon is bad because CO2 is bad, etc...
I know that the addition or removal of any of electrons, protons or neutrons in an atom changes (or can change) significantly its properties. The
point of this post is not to discuss the literal chemistry, but the fact that basic science is abused to the extreme for the purposes of the
perpetuation of MMGW dogma.
Great thread, OP.
edit on 20-12-2013 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-12-2013 by mirageofdeceit because:
(no reason given)