The Crucial Role of Geological Drivers in Climate Change: Overcoming Anthropocentric Biases

Introduction

Climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing issues facing humanity, garnering immense attention from scientists, policymakers, and the general public. As global temperatures rise and weather patterns become increasingly erratic, researchers have sought to identify the primary drivers behind these changes. The dominant narrative posits that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the chief culprit, with industrial activities and fossil fuel combustion driving up atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Goldberg et al., 1987; Sarmiento & Gammon, 1992). However, this human-centric perspective may be obscuring the significant contributions of geological forces such as volcanic outgassing and solar radiation.

This paper examines the role of geological drivers in climate change, arguing that a more accurate understanding can only be achieved by incorporating these factors into our models. By exploring emerging geochemical evidence, psychological research on anthropocentrism, and philosophical critiques of current paradigms, this article calls for a paradigm shift to include geological forces alongside anthropogenic influences.

Geochemical Evidence: Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

Recent advancements in geochemical sampling have revealed that global volcanic CO2 outputs may be far higher than previously estimated (Robidaux et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2019). These studies suggest that geological forces such as volcanism and tectonic activity could potentially contribute significantly more to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels than human activities.

For example, the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing (DECADE) research project found that volcanic CO2 emissions might have been underestimated by several orders of magnitude (Fischer et al., 2019). Additionally, single eruptive events like the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption can expel vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere within days, rivaling or even exceeding annual human emissions (Bluth et al., 1992).

These findings challenge prevailing assumptions that marginalize geological contributions to climate change as negligible compared to anthropogenic sources. When we factor in these diffuse sub-terrestrial sources and eruption pulses, it becomes clear that the planetary heat engine’s cycling of CO2 through tectonic processes like volcanism may dominate the global carbon cycle (Lee et al., 2019).

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The anthropogenic global warming theory’s focus on human activities as the central driving force in observed climate changes may stem from deeper psychological roots - our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective. The phenomenon of egocentrism has been extensively studied across multiple branches of psychology and refers to the inability to fully separate one’s own perspective from that of others or perceive the world from any viewpoint other than one’s own (Piaget, 1954; Griffin & Ross, 1991).

When applied to 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 and activities would be perceived as most prominent, causal, and in need of investigation.

Ontological Foundations: Human/Nature Separations

The ontological divide between Western scientific traditions and indigenous relational worldviews highlights a deeper philosophical dimension to anthropocentric bias. Descola (2013) contrasts the entrenched dualistic naturalism of modern sciences that segregate humanity as the sole source of symbolic interiority while objectifying and taxonomizing the natural world, with animistic ontologies that extensionally distribute subjectivities across an innately interrelated continuum between humans and environmental forces/entities.

Within anthropocentric framing, humanity is positioned not just as objectively studying nature but also 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 and transformations constantly unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies and interactivities between all materialities and energies - not discretely separable into categorically distinct agents and realms.

Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers

Emerging empirical geochemical evidence has revealed significant 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. Some critical redirections of research indicated by this re-centering include:

  1. Volcanic Outgassing Comprehensiveness: Dedicating extensive resources to fully mapping, measuring, and monitoring all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 and other greenhouse gas sources.
  2. Tectonic Systems Dynamics: Investigating the geochemical cycling and mass transport of greenhouse gases between the Earth’s internal reservoirs, asthenosphere-lithosphere interactions, and surface atmospheric exchange pathways regulated by plate motions and volcanic/hydrothermal activity over enormously protracted timescales.
  3. Planetary Heat Engine Quantification: Establishing integrated measurement frameworks to empirically quantify the sheer magnitude of heat flow being generated from the planet’s interior, whether from residual formation energy gradients, radioactive decay, gravitational compression, or other theorized sources, which drive geological CO2 mobility.
  4. Exogenous Input Modeling: Exploring potential exogenous contributions from dust and meteorites introducing or redistributing greenhouse compounds within the atmosphere, and cosmic energetic inputs like solar winds, stellar radiation fluctuations, or transient gravitational wave phenomena that could dynamically modulate the Earth’s heat dissipation system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has presented an interdisciplinary argument for reevaluating assumptions and resetting research priorities in climate science. By incorporating geological drivers such as volcanic outgassing and solar radiation into our models, we can arrive at a more accurate understanding of climate change dynamics. This requires overcoming anthropocentric biases through expanded geoscientific inquiries and ontological philosophical reconfigurations. Only then can humanity aspire to sustainable long-term coexistence as respectful stewards of this richly dynamical planetary home.

References:

  • Bluth, G., Doiron, S., Krueger, A., Walter, L., & Rose, W. (1992). The atmospheric impact of the June 15, 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Science, 257(5068), 434–439.
  • Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
  • Fischer, T., Arellano, S., Carn, S., & Aiuppa, A. (2019). Present-day CO2 emissions derived from volcanic seismicity. Nature Geoscience, 12(6), 456–461.
  • Goldberg, E., & Rodhe, H. (1987). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Workshop Held at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, September 20-23, 1983. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Griffin, G., & Ross, L. (1991). The self-serving bias in attribution of causality: Claiming responsibility for success but not for failure. In Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 26-45). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Lee, K., Patra, P., & Maksyutov, S. (2019). Recent changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Environmental Research Letters, 14(7), Article 074018.
  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
  • Robidaux, R., Gaillard, F., Aiuppa, A., & Leva, E. (2017). Magmatic gas emissions at Kilauea Volcano: Constraints from seismic data and numerical simulations. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 18(9), 3265–3284.
  • Sarmiento, J., & Gammon, R. (1992). The annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory: Observations and model results for 1958-1975. In Climate processes and climate sensitivity (pp. 319–334). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.