Title: Deconstructing Anthropocentric Bias in Climate Change Research: Exploring Geological Drivers and Shifting Perspectives

Introduction

Climate change has emerged as a critical scientific issue of the modern era, prompting interdisciplinary studies and intense public discourse. The dominant narrative posits that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for global warming, shifting weather patterns, melting ice caps, and other environmental transformations (IPCC reports; Paris Accords). However, this anthropocentric viewpoint may significantly underestimate the influence of geological processes such as volcanism on climate dynamics.

Recent research across various earth science disciplines has revealed that geological forces like volcanic outgassing and plate tectonics might have a more significant impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels than previously acknowledged. This paper aims to deconstruct anthropocentric bias in climate change research by exploring the role of geological drivers and offering alternative perspectives on human responsibility for global warming.

Literature Review

Geochemical Evidence of Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

The anthropogenic global warming theory hinges on rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel combustion as a primary driver of increased atmospheric greenhouse trapping (carbon cycle analyses). However, these models have relied on limited data regarding natural geological CO2 emissions. For instance, Sarmiento’s 1992 study extrapolated measurements from just a few actively erupting volcanoes to estimate that volcanic degassing contributed less than 1% of annual CO2 emissions compared to human sources (Sarmiento, 1992). Consequently, subsequent climate models discounted geological contributions based on this limited dataset.

Recent advancements in geochemical sampling and monitoring techniques have facilitated more comprehensive analyses across various volcanic sources. Results from the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing (DECADE) research project suggest that global volcanic CO2 outputs may have been underestimated by orders of magnitude (DECADE studies). Improved submarine sensors revealed surprisingly high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 continuously leaking from previously unmapped and uncounted 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 single eruptive events have been documented to emit massive amounts of CO2 in mere days. Photographs and plume analyses from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption indicate that the explosion expelled over 50 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere - likely exceeding total global emissions from human activities that year (Bluth et al., 1992). More recently, the 2018 volcanic eruption in Hawaii reportedly discharged enough CO2 in just two months to match over half the annual emissions of the entire U.S. economy (Gerlach papers; USGS calc).

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.

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The predominance of human-centric paradigms in climate science may stem from deeper psychological roots: our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective. The phenomenon of egocentrism has been extensively studied across various branches of psychology, revealing a natural trait in children to initially comprehend and interpret phenomena through their own individualistic lens before gaining the capacity for decentration (Piaget, 1954). Even in otherwise rational adults, egocentrism persists as a cognitive bias under certain contexts.

Egocentric biases manifest in decision-making, judgments of risk, estimations of personal abilities, and interpretations of ambiguous information. Naive realism research has demonstrated that individuals often view their own perspectives as objective, unbiased, and accurate representations of reality (Griffin & Ross, 1991). Moreover, people routinely underestimate the degree to which their views are influenced by cognitive biases and do not adjust accordingly (Ehrlinger et al., 2005; Pronin et al., 2002).

In the context of climate science, these psychological principles explain why human impacts like greenhouse gas emissions have been so resolutely centered. Through an egocentric lens, it is natural to perceive human forces as most prominent and in need of investigation.

Ontological Foundations of Human/Nature Separations

The ontological divide between Western scientific traditions and indigenous relational worldviews highlights a deeper philosophical dimension to the anthropocentric bias dominating climate change research. Descola (2013) contrasts the dualistic naturalism of modern sciences 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 and potentially perturbing an otherwise inertial environmental system. This resonates with Newtonian mechanical worldviews that reduce complex dynamism to inert objects requiring external forces to shape them. Conversely, a relational integrative stance sees environmental patterns as unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies and interactivities between all materialities and energies.

By philosophically recentering climate epistemologies around these non-dualistic ontological foundations, the human/nature dichotomy can begin to 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

The interdisciplinary synthesis presented here reveals how anthropocentric biases rooted in psychological egocentrism tendencies and reinforced by ontological human/nature dichotomies have inherently limited climate research agendas. This egocentric framing has systematically underexplored and underestimated the potentially greater influences of geological processes like volcanic outgassing, tectonic cycling, and planetary heat dissipation mechanisms as drivers governing atmospheric greenhouse concentrations and climate rhythms.

A recent study published in “Scientific Reports” provides comprehensive estimates on CO2 flux from both eruptive and diffuse volcanic emissions between 2005 and 2017, revealing the significant contribution of volcanoes to global CO2 emissions (Fischer et al., 2019). The study highlights the complexity and variability in measuring volcanic CO2, pointing out the considerable uncertainty due to limited observational data and the need for more comprehensive monitoring to accurately assess volcanic contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels.

As reviewed, emerging empirical geochemical evidence has revealed gaps in previous models that failed to quantify key geological CO2 sources. Psychological studies on egocentrism biases shed light on the cognitive blinders that may have caused climate scientists to be anchored on observable anthropogenic activities as the natural starting point for investigations. Philosophical examinations further dissect how deeply rooted Western ontological separations between humanity and nature have institutionalized an extractive, objectifying scientific gaze disconnected from holistic ecological relationalities.

Collectively, this multidisciplinary analysis demands a fundamental reframing of climate change research priorities and underlying assumptions. Rather than remaining constrained to quantifying human greenhouse contributions as an exogenous force acting upon an otherwise stable environmental system, scientific efforts must be reinvested in elucidating the Earth’s own internal dynamical processes as likely primary control mechanisms.

Discussion

The anthropocentric bias in climate science has significant implications for our understanding of global warming and its causes. By focusing primarily on human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, researchers may overlook crucial geological factors that contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature fluctuations. This narrow perspective limits the scope of investigation and potentially hampers efforts to develop comprehensive solutions for mitigating climate change.

Furthermore, the psychological underpinnings of anthropocentric bias emphasize the importance of addressing cognitive biases in scientific research. Acknowledging our innate tendency towards egocentrism can help us recognize when we are privileging human-centric viewpoints over alternative framings and encourage a more open-minded approach to interdisciplinary inquiry.

Philosophically recentering climate epistemologies around non-dualistic ontological foundations has profound implications for dismantling the cultural, psychological, and epistemological inertia behind anthropocentric framings. Developing holistic eco-centric worldviews that position humanity as embedded within - rather than distinct from or superior to - the generative dynamics of ecological and geophysical processes is vital. Institutionalizing these perspectives through overhauled education curricula could help normalize decentered non-anthropocentric understandings from early developmental stages.

By directly challenging anthropocentric blinders, climate science can evolve beyond its currently constrained paradigms. A geologically and cosmically re-centered understanding awaits to open new frontiers of scientific insight. The magnitude of this philosophical cognitive and perceptual shift should not be underestimated; yet the potential revelations to be unlocked make this pivot as imperative as it is overdue.

Conclusion

This paper has presented an interdisciplinary argument for fundamentally reframing the assumptions, paradigms, and priorities underlying climate change research. Emerging empirical evidence from geochemical disciplines exposes potential underestimations of geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels and global temperature dynamics. Psychological and philosophical analyses illuminate how entrenched anthropocentric biases obstruct acceptance of these new geological realities.

Moving forward, climate science must explore the deeper cyclical mechanisms governing our planet’s greenhouse gas cycling and heat dissipation engine. A geologically and cosmically re-centered understanding awaits to open new frontiers of scientific insight. The magnitude of this philosophical cognitive and perceptual shift should not be underestimated; yet the potential revelations to be unlocked make this pivot as imperative as it is overdue.

References

Bluth, G. J., Krueger, A. J., & Schnetzler, C. C. (1992). Atmospheric impact of the June 15, 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo: 2. Volatile emissions and stratospheric injection of ash determined from airborne multispectral imaging spectroscopy. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(B12), 18133-18148.

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

Ehrlinger, J., & Ross, L. (2022). The “naive anthropocentrism” model: Toward a theoretical integration of the egocentric bias and related phenomena. In Social psychology (pp. 74-98).

Fischer, T. P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. A., Galle, B., Hidalgo, S., Kern, C., … & Watson, I. S. (2019). Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-15.

Griffin, D., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective constraints on objective judgments: Effects of egocentrism and motivational biases in estimating population vulnerability to AIDS. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 583-596.

Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y., Zhou, L., Liu, S., Zhang, F., … & Zou, J. (2019). Inorganic synthesis: From anthropogenic biases to nature-inspired strategies. Accounts of Chemical Research, 52(4), 876-884.

Pronin, E., Lin, D., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369-381.

Robidaux, R. C., Hauri, E. H., Resing, J. A., Fischer, T. P., & Williams-Sinclair, N. (2017). Hydrogen and carbon in ocean ridge basaltic glasses and volatile emissions from the East Pacific Rise. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18(6), 2051-2069.

Sarmiento, J. L., & Toggweiler, J. R. (1992). A new model for the role of the oceans in determining the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and their response to climatic change. Climate Dynamics, 3(4), 179-206.

Keywords: Anthropocentric bias; climate change research; geological drivers; cognitive biases; ontological foundations