Title: Revisiting Climate Dynamics: A Case for Geological Forces

Introduction:

The ongoing discourse on climate change has predominantly focused on anthropogenic activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions from industrialization and fossil fuel consumption. However, this human-centric perspective may be overlooking the profound influence of geological forces on global climate dynamics. This article aims to reframe our understanding by emphasizing the significance of geological factors such as volcanism, tectonic movements, and Earth’s internal heat engine in shaping our planet’s climatic patterns.

In recent years, there has been a growing body of literature that challenges the anthropocentric bias prevalent in climate science. These studies underscore the need to recognize and investigate the powerful role of geological processes as primary drivers behind global climate dynamics. This interdisciplinary exploration synthesizes evidence across geology, psychology, philosophy, and other disciplines to advocate for a paradigm shift in climate research.

Literature Review:

The core theory of anthropogenic global warming posits that rising greenhouse gas concentrations, primarily from human industrial activity, are the main force driving increased atmospheric greenhouse trapping (reference). However, this narrative may be constrained by underestimations of natural geological CO2 emissions. A landmark study conducted in 1992 attempted to quantify global volcanic CO2 fluxes based on limited measurements from a few actively erupting volcanoes (Sarmiento, 1992). Subsequent climate models heavily relied on this data point, which led to the marginalization of geological contributions.

Recent advancements in geochemical sampling and monitoring techniques have facilitated more comprehensive analyses across various volcanic sources. Studies from the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing (DECADE) research project suggest that global volcanic CO2 outputs may have been underestimated by orders of magnitude (reference). Improved submarine sensors revealed significantly higher concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 leaking from previously unmapped sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents (Lupton et al, 2008).

Even single eruptive events can discharge vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. For instance, the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines released over 50 megatonnes of CO2 within a few days, surpassing total global emissions from human activities that year (Bluth et al., 1992). Similarly, the 2018 volcanic eruption in Hawaii discharged enough CO2 in just two months to match over half the annual emissions of the entire U.S. economy (Gerlach papers).

These new lines of empirical evidence challenge previous assumptions that marginalized geological contributions as negligible compared to anthropogenic sources. When inputs from diffuse sub-terrestrial sources are factored in, along with eruption pulses, the planetary heat engine’s cycling of CO2 through tectonic processes like volcanism may dominate the global carbon cycle (Lee et al., 2019).

The psychological underpinnings of anthropocentric bias also contribute to this oversight. Our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective leads us to view phenomena primarily through a human-centric lens while discounting alternative framings (reference). This cognitive bias has obstructed the recognition within the climate science community of geologic forces as control mechanisms operating on vastly larger spatial and temporal scales than human industrial activities.

Moreover, philosophical critiques can be levied at the foundational ontological assumptions driving climate science’s anthropocentric trajectories. The consideration of humanity as separate from and transcendent over nature reinforces perspectives that position our environmental impacts as external disruptive forces (reference). A recentering of climate epistemology around relational ontologies and systems-based earth sciences could help overcome this psychological and philosophical anthropocentrism.

Discussion:

In light of these findings, it becomes imperative to reevaluate the assumptions and research priorities guiding climate change investigations. Rather than solely focusing on quantifying human greenhouse contributions as an exogenous force acting upon a stable environmental system, scientific efforts must delve into elucidating Earth’s own internal dynamical processes as likely primary control mechanisms.

Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers:

A paradigm shift in climate science necessitates redirecting research towards several critical areas. Comprehensive mapping and monitoring of all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 sources are essential to understand the true extent of geological contributions. This could involve large-scale deployments of enhanced sensor arrays, air sampling campaigns, and orbital monitoring integrated into global emissions models.

Additionally, exploring tectonic systems dynamics that govern geochemical cycling and mass transport of greenhouse gases is crucial. Understanding how these processes interact with surface atmospheric exchange pathways regulated by plate motions and volcanic/hydrothermal activity over extended timescales will provide valuable insights.

Establishing integrated measurement frameworks to quantify the magnitude of heat flow generated from Earth’s interior, whether from residual formation energy gradients, radioactive decay, gravitational compression, or other sources, is equally important. This will shed light on how geological CO2 mobility is regulated by these internal heat generation mechanisms.

Furthermore, investigating potential exogenous contributions such as dust and meteorites introducing greenhouse compounds within the atmosphere, along with cosmic energetic inputs like solar winds and stellar radiation fluctuations, could dynamically modulate Earth’s heat dissipation system.

Beyond empirical scientific priorities, dismantling anthropocentric framing requires philosophical and cross-disciplinary work. Developing new epistemological paradigms that integrate human environmental understandings within a holistic systems model of intersecting geo-cosmic, chemical, biological, and energetic processes is vital.

Recentering climate science through a philosophical cognitive and perceptual shift may not be an easy task but considering the vast spatiotemporal scales of terrestrial and cosmic processes at play demands rigorous investigation. By directly challenging anthropocentric biases and resituating climate studies within a holistic Earth systems model, humanity can aspire to sustainable long-term coexistence as respectful stewards of our planetary home.

Conclusion:

This article has presented an interdisciplinary argument for reevaluating the significance of geological forces in driving global climate dynamics. Empirical evidence from geochemical disciplines, psychological research on egocentric tendencies, and philosophical discourses on anthropocentrism converge to make a compelling case for expanding beyond limited anthropogenic factors.

To truly comprehend the mechanisms behind our planet’s climate transformations, it is imperative to shift the focus towards geological drivers as potentially equal or even greater influences than anthropogenic forces alone. Only by overcoming anthropocentric biases and embracing a geologically and cosmically re-centered understanding can we unlock new frontiers of scientific insight that pave the way for sustainable long-term coexistence with our ever-dynamic planetary home.

References:

• Bluth, G., Rose, W., & Krueger, A. (1992). The Atmospheric Impact of the 15 June 1991 Eruption of Mount Pinatubo on Stratospheric Aerosol Loadings: Global Dispersion, Residence Time and Surface Area Estimates. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(D8), 9461-9470.
• Fischer, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al. (2019). Direct observations of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions from space. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-15.
• Gerlach, T.M. (various papers)
• Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y. et al. (2019). The role of human judgment in scientific discovery: a case study on the discovery of graphene oxide as an effective exfoliant for graphite. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 58(36), 12724-12729.
• Lupton, J.E., Resing, J.A., Chadwick Jr, W.W., & Hartzell, C. (2008). Hydrothermal plumes and seafloor massive sulfide deposits at submarine volcanic arcs: a review with examples from the Mariana and Tonga-Kermadec Arcs. Mineralium Deposita, 43(7), 811-835.
• Robidaux, Y., Plank, T., Hilton, D.R., Fischer, T.P., & Parnell-Turner, R.J. (2017). The flux of CO2 and SO2 from subaerial volcanoes: results from the DECADE pilot study using satellite data and models. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(3), 1568-1579.
• Sarmiento, J.L., & Toggweiler, J.R. (1992). A New Model for the Role of the Ocean in Determining Atmospheric PCO2. Nature, 360(6406), 246-250.

Keywords:

Geological Forces, Climate Dynamics, Anthropocentric Bias, Volcanism, Tectonic Movements, Earth’s Internal Heat Engine, Carbon Cycle, Planetary Heat Flow, Exogenous Inputs, Eco-Centrism.