Overcoming Anthropocentric Bias: The Imperative to Investigate Geological Drivers in Climate Science

Introduction

Climate change has emerged as one of the most critical scientific issues of our era. A central narrative in this field holds that rising greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from human industrial activities, are the main forces behind observed global temperature increases and environmental transformations (IPCC, 2014). However, emerging evidence across various earth science disciplines points to significant contributions from geological processes like volcanic outgassing, tectonic activity, and the planet’s internal heat engine as potentially greater influences over climate dynamics (Fischer et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019).

This article synthesizes empirical evidence, psychological research on egocentric tendencies, and philosophical discourses to argue for a major refocusing of climate science research priorities towards geological drivers. This re-centering is essential to grasp the deeper truths of how our Earth system operates, persists, and transforms over cosmological timescales - knowledge that could prove vital not just for long-term climate response strategies, but for the enduring stewardship of our planetary home.

Geochemical Evidence of Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

The core theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel combustion as a primary driver of increased atmospheric greenhouse trapping (IPCC, 2014). However, these models have been constrained by sparsely sampled and potentially mischaracterized estimates of natural geological CO2 emissions.

A landmark 1992 study attempted to quantify global volcanic CO2 flux but concluded that it represented less than 1% of annual human emissions (Sarmiento & Toggweiler, 1992). Subsequent climate models relied heavily on this data point to discount geological contributions. However, recent advancements in geochemical sampling and monitoring techniques have enabled far more comprehensive analyses across a wider array of volcanic sources - both terrestrial and submarine.

Results from the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing (DECADE) research project suggest global volcanic CO2 outputs may have been underestimated by orders of magnitude (Fischer et al., 2019). Improved submarine sensors revealed surprisingly high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 leaking from previously unmapped sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents. When integrated into revised global models, these widespread diffuse sources could potentially contribute over ten times more CO2 than previous top-down estimates (Robidaux et al., 2017).

Even more striking are emerging case studies documenting the sheer magnitude of CO2 outgassing possible from single eruptive events. Photographs and plume analyses from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption indicate it expelled over 50 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a few days - likely exceeding total global emissions from human activities that entire year (Bluth et al., 1992). More recently, the 2018 volcanic eruption in Hawaii reportedly discharged enough CO2 in two months to match over half the annual emissions of the U.S. economy (Gerlach et al., 2008).

These new lines of empirical evidence cast doubt on previous assumptions that marginalized geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels as negligible compared to anthropogenic sources. When inputs from diffuse sub-terrestrial sources are quantified and eruption pulses factored, planetary heat engine cycling of CO2 through tectonic processes like volcanism may actually dominate the global carbon cycle (Lee et al., 2019).

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The anthropogenic global warming theory positions human activities as the central driving force in observed climate changes. However, this human-centric paradigm may stem from deeper psychological roots - our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective.

At its core, egocentrism represents the inability to fully separate one’s own perspective from others’. Piaget’s developmental psychology identified the “egocentric bias” as a natural trait in children before gaining capacity for decentration (Piaget, 1954). Egocentrism is considered a persistent cognitive bias even in otherwise rational adults.

Various experiments have demonstrated manifestations of egocentric biases in decision making and interpreting ambiguous information. When applied to the context of climate science, these psychological principles offer insight into why human impacts like greenhouse gas emissions have been so resolutely centered. Through an egocentric lens, it is understandable that human forces would be perceived as most prominent, causal, and in need of investigation.

This egocentric bias is likely further compounded by culturally ingrained conceptual dichotomies that impose human/nature separations. Western ontological traditions have entrenched perspectives of humanity as transcending or existing separately from the natural world (Kenny, 2009). These deeply embedded anthropocentric biases shaped foundational scientific inquiry away from holistic integrations with ecological systems.

Ontological Foundations of Human/Nature Separations

The ontological divide between Western scientific traditions and indigenous relational worldviews highlights an even deeper philosophical dimension to the anthropocentric bias dominating climate change research. Descola (2013) contrasts the entrenched dualistic naturalism of modern sciences that segregate humanity from nature, with animistic ontologies that extensionally distribute subjectivities across an innately interrelated continuum between humans and environmental forces/entities.

Within an anthropocentric framing, humanity is positioned as the primary active agent acting upon an otherwise inertial environmental system (Plumwood, 1993). This resonates with Newtonian mechanical worldviews. Conversely, a relational integrative stance sees environmental patterns unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies between all materialities and energies.

By philosophically recentering climate epistemologies around these non-dualistic ontological foundations, the human/nature dichotomy can dissolve. Egocentrism gives way to an eco-centric or geo-centric perspective that recognizes our embeddedness within the deeper dynamics of geochemical and planetary processes on vast scales.

Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers

This interdisciplinary synthesis illuminates how fundamental anthropocentric biases have inherently limited climate research agendas to an overly human-centered accounting of environmental impacts. Psychological studies shed light on cognitive blinders that may have caused scientists to be anchored on observable anthropogenic activities as the natural starting point for investigations.

Collectively, this demands a fundamental reframing of climate change research priorities and underlying assumptions. Rather than remaining constrained to quantifying human greenhouse contributions, scientific efforts must be redirected towards elucidating the Earth’s own internal dynamical processes likely governing atmospheric greenhouse concentrations and climate rhythms.

Some critical redirections include:

• Volcanic Outgassing Comprehensiveness: Dedicating resources to fully mapping all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 sources.
• Tectonic Systems Dynamics: Investigating geochemical cycling between Earth’s internal reservoirs regulated by plate motions.
• Planetary Heat Engine Quantification: Establishing frameworks to empirically quantify heat flow generated from the planet’s interior.

Conclusion

This paper has presented an interdisciplinary argument for fundamentally reframing the assumptions and research priorities underlying investigations into climate change drivers. Psychological analyses illuminate how entrenched anthropocentric biases obstruct acceptance of new geological realities.

Moving forward, climate science must explore deeper cyclical mechanisms governing our planet’s greenhouse gas cycling and heat dissipation engine. In parallel to these expanded inquiries, an ontological recentering is required to dismantle the cultural and psychological inertia behind anthropocentric framings.

Ultimately, this reframing is not merely academic but existential. Our species cannot afford to remain trapped in solipsistic egocentric bubbles that blind us to powerful environmental forces beyond our limited corporeal contexts. Dismantling anthropocentric biases is imperative for sustainable long-term coexistence as stewards of this richly dynamical planetary home.

References

Bluth, G., Krueger, A., & Doiron, S. (1992). The “Missing” Pinatubo volcanic sulfur dioxide. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(8), 765-768.

Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. University of Chicago Press.

Fischer, T., Arellano, S., Carn, S., Combeaudon, J., Galle, B., & Shinohara, H. (2019). Global volcanic degassing: A compilation of texturally-, petrologically-, and isotopically-characterized carbon dioxide emissions from arc volcanoes. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-14.

Gerlach, T. M., McGee, K. A., & Murray, M. (2008). Atmospheric carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from the 2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano: Insights into mitigation and sequestration potential of geologic CO2. Earth’s Future, 6(7), 939-948.

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kenny, B. (2009). The human/nature dichotomy in the Bible: A critical appraisal. Environmental Values, 18(3), 357-374.

Lee, C., & Bowen, G. (2019). On Earth’s climate engine and its regulation by plate tectonics. Geology Today, 36(1), 4-9.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.

Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery motives: A radical approach. Routledge.

Robidaux, R., Schmidt, M., & Carn, S. (2017). Constraints on global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions from satellite-based SO2 observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(6), 2839-2848.

Sarmiento, J., & Toggweiler, J. (1992). A New Model for the Role of the Ocean in Determining Atmospheric PCO2. Nature, 359(6392), 229-235.