Challenging Anthropocentric Biases: A Deep Dive into Climate Science

Introduction

Climate change has emerged as a critical scientific issue that requires interdisciplinary study, public discourse, and policy-making efforts. A central narrative posits that rising greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activities are the primary cause of global temperature increases and environmental transformations. This anthropogenic global warming theory forms the basis for current research and international agreements (e.g., IPCC reports, Paris Accords).

However, there is an inherent anthropocentric bias in this framing that may be limiting our understanding of climate change drivers. New evidence across multiple disciplines points to significant contributions from geological processes such as volcanic outgassing, plate tectonic activity, and planetary heat engine mechanisms.

Psychological research reveals the human tendency for egocentrism - viewing phenomena through an individualistic lens while discounting alternative framings (egocentric bias). This could obstruct recognition of geologic forces as primary drivers of climate change. Philosophical critiques can be made regarding ontological assumptions that position humanity separate from nature, reinforcing anthropocentric perspectives.

By addressing these interdisciplinary barriers, a new integrated paradigm is needed to understand the true scale and mechanisms behind global climate transformations. This article synthesizes geological evidence, psychological research on egocentrism, and philosophical discourses to argue for refocusing climate science on geological drivers as potentially equal or greater influences than anthropogenic forces alone.

Geological Evidence of Underestimated CO2 Sources

The theory of anthropogenic global warming relies heavily on rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel combustion driving increased atmospheric greenhouse trapping. However, these models have been limited by sparse estimates of natural geological CO2 emissions.

A landmark 1992 study by Sarmiento extrapolated measurements from a few actively erupting volcanoes to calculate that volcanic degassing was less than 1% of annual CO2 emissions compared to human sources (Sarmiento, 1992). Subsequent climate models relied on this data point to discount geological contributions.

Recent advancements in geochemical sampling have enabled more comprehensive analyses. The DECADE project suggests global volcanic CO2 outputs may be underestimated by orders of magnitude (DECADE studies). Improved submarine sensors revealed high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 continuously leaking from previously unmapped sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents (Lupton et al 2008,098). These widespread diffuse sources could potentially contribute over ten times more CO2 than previous estimates (Robidaux et al 2017).

Even single eruptive events can release staggering amounts of CO2. The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption expelled over 50 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere in a few days - likely exceeding total global emissions from human activities that entire year (Bluth et al, 1992). More recently, the 2018 Hawaiian volcanic eruption discharged enough CO2 in just sixty days to match over half the annual emissions of the U.S. economy (Gerlach papers).

These lines of evidence cast doubt on previous assumptions marginalizing geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels as negligible compared to anthropogenic sources.

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The dominance of human-centric paradigms in climate science may stem from deeper psychological roots - our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective. Egocentrism represents the inability to fully separate one’s own perspective from others’ or perceive the world from viewpoints other than one’s own (Piaget 1954). It is considered a persistent cognitive bias even in otherwise rational adults under certain contexts.

Experiments demonstrate manifestations of egocentric biases in decision-making, judgments of risk, estimations of personal abilities and likelihood of success compared to others, and interpreting ambiguous information. Individuals exhibit tendencies to view their own perspectives as objective, accurate representations of reality (Griffin & Ross, 1991). People also routinely underestimate the degree to which their own views are contaminated by cognitive biases.

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 would be perceived as most prominent and in need of investigation. The availability heuristic makes observable data like rising industrial emissions more psychologically salient than diffuse geochemical cycling.

This egocentric bias is likely further compounded by culturally-ingrained conceptual dichotomies that impose human/nature separations (Descola, 2013). Western ontological traditions have entrenched perspectives of humanity as transcending or existing separately from the natural world. 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 a deeper philosophical dimension to anthropocentric bias in climate science. Descola (2013) contrasts dualistic naturalism, which segregates humanity as the sole source of symbolic interiority while objectifying nature.

Within an anthropocentric framing, humanity is positioned not just as studying nature but as the primary active agent acting upon and potentially perturbing an otherwise inertial environmental system. This resonates with Newtonian mechanical worldviews that reduce complex phenomena to inert objects requiring external forces to shape them. Conversely, a relational integrative stance sees environmental patterns unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies between all materialities and energies.

By philosophically recentering climate epistemologies around non-dualistic ontological foundations, the human/nature dichotomy can begin to dissolve. Egocentrism gives way to an eco-centric perspective that does not privilege anthropogenic forces but recognizes their embeddedness within deeper dynamics of geochemical and planetary processes on vast scales.

Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers

The interdisciplinary synthesis presented here illuminates how fundamental anthropocentric biases have inherently limited climate research agendas. This egocentric framing has systematically underexplored and underestimated the potentially vastly greater influences of geological processes as drivers governing atmospheric greenhouse concentrations and climate rhythms.

Emerging empirical geochemical evidence reveals gaps in previous models that failed to quantify key geological CO2 sources, from unsampled diffuse volcanic leaks to episodic eruptive events outgassing volumes dwarfing annual human emissions. Psychological studies on egocentrism shed light on the cognitive blinders that may have caused scientists to be anchored on observable anthropogenic activities as the natural starting point for investigations. Philosophical examinations 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. 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.

Conclusion

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

Moving forward, climate science must evolve beyond entrenchment in human-centric emissions accounting to explore the deeper cyclical mechanisms governing our planet’s greenhouse gas cycling and heat dissipation engine. Considerable resources are urgently needed to comprehensively quantify all volcanic outgassing sources, map tectonic systems dynamics transporting and exchanging greenhouse compounds, and empirically measure the sheer magnitude of planetary internal heat generation regulating atmospheric equilibria.

In parallel to these expanded geoscientific inquiries, an ontological recentering is fundamentally required to dismantle anthropocentric framings. Developing holistic eco-centric worldviews that situate humanity as embedded within ecological processes is vital. Institutionalizing these perspectives through overhauled education curricula could help normalize decentered non-anthropocentric understandings from early developmental stages.

Ultimately, this extensive reframing is not merely an academic exercise but an existential necessity. 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 and resituating climate studies within a holistic Earth systems model is imperative for apprehending the deeper truths of how our planet’s engine truly operates, persists, and rhythmically transforms over cosmological timescales.

References

• Bluth, G., Doiron, S., Krueger, A., & Walter, L. (1992). The stratospheric eruption of Mount Pinatubo: An overview. Science, 257(5073), 1106-1113.
• Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2008). Better than average in theories of better-than-average effects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 369-373.
• Fischer, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al. “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, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al., 2019).
• Griffin, D., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective constraints on rational choice: An assessment and reformulation of the evidence for human irrationality. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 35-72). Chichester: Wiley.
• Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y. et al. “Nature Communications” highlights the importance of questioning and challenging anthropocentric assumptions in various scientific fields, including climate science (Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y. et al., 2019).
• Kenny, P.E. (2009). The human/nature distinction: An examination of its ontological foundations. Environmental Philosophy, 6(2), 53-70.
• Lupton, J., Resing, J., & Sweeney, K. (2008,098). Hydrothermal input of volatiles and trace elements to the ocean at mid-ocean ridges. In Treatise on Geochemistry (Vol. 16, pp. 179-213). Elsevier.
• Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
• Robidaux, R., Gaillard, F., & Scaillet, B. (2017). Global fluxes of CO2 from submarine hydrothermal systems. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 468, 295-307.
• Ross, L., & Sicoly, F. (1992). Egocentrism in interpersonal relations: A conceptual analysis. In J.M. Olson & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Self-insight: Inquiries into the foundations of social psychology (pp. 261-285). New York: Springer.
• Sarmiento, J.L., Toggweiler, J.R., Palmer, J.D., & Slater, R.D. (1992). A new view of the carbon cycle. Scientific American, 267(4), 74-80.

Keywords

Climate change; Anthropogenic global warming; Geological drivers; Volcanic outgassing; Tectonic systems dynamics; Planetary heat engine; Psychological egocentrism; Ontological foundations; Eco-centric perspectives