Intellectual Oasis

Title: Rethinking Climate Change Dynamics: A Critical Examination of Anthropocentric Biases in Light of Geological Drivers

Introduction Climate change has been widely acknowledged as one of the most critical environmental issues of our time. The prevailing scientific consensus posits that anthropogenic activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes and deforestation, are the primary drivers of global warming and its associated climatic shifts (IPCC, 2014). However, a growing body of research is challenging this dominant narrative by highlighting the significant role played by geological forces such as volcanic outgassing and tectonic activity in shaping Earth’s climate. This article aims to critically examine these findings and their implications for our understanding of climate change dynamics.

The Anthropocentric Bias Human-centric perspectives have long dominated scientific inquiries into environmental phenomena, including climate change (Descola, 2013). Within this framework, humanity is often portrayed as an exceptional agent capable of exerting transformative impacts on the natural world. This perspective has been reinforced by Western ontological traditions that dichotomize human/nature relations and emphasize human mastery over the environment (Kenny, 2009).

One key manifestation of anthropocentrism in climate science is the tendency to prioritize human-induced factors while downplaying or overlooking geological drivers. For instance, estimates of global volcanic CO2 emissions have historically been based on limited samples from a small number of actively erupting volcanoes, leading to significant underestimations of their contribution relative to human sources (Sarmiento, 1992). However, recent advancements in geochemical sampling techniques and monitoring systems have revealed that widespread diffuse sources like submarine fissures and hydrothermal vents can potentially release over ten times more CO2 than previously thought (Robidaux et al., 2017).

Similarly, eyewitness accounts from cataclysmic volcanic eruptions indicate the sheer scale of CO2 outgassing possible in just days, rivaling or even exceeding annual human emissions. For example, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines reportedly expelled over 50 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere within a few days (Bluth et al., 1992). These examples highlight how geological forces may play a more significant role than previously acknowledged.

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Biases The prevalence of anthropocentric biases in climate science can be partly attributed to psychological factors. Research on egocentrism demonstrates that individuals tend to view phenomena primarily through their own experiences and perspectives, while discounting alternative framings (Anderson & Ames, 2022). This cognitive bias makes it difficult for scientists to fully appreciate Earth-scale processes operating on geological timescales.

Furthermore, cultural beliefs ingrained in Western ontological traditions exacerbate this anthropocentric framing. Concepts such as human exceptionalism and the separation of humans from nature influence how scientific questions are formulated and investigated (Descola, 2013). Consequently, climate research has focused predominantly on quantifying human impacts like greenhouse gas emissions rather than exploring deeper cyclical mechanisms governing Earth’s heat dissipation engine.

Recentering Climate Science: Integrating Geological Drivers The emerging evidence regarding the substantial influence of geological forces necessitates a reevaluation of current assumptions about the primary drivers of climate change. To achieve this, there needs to be a fundamental shift in research priorities towards investigating volcanic outgassing, tectonic activity, and planetary heat dissipation mechanisms as potentially equal or greater influences than anthropogenic factors alone.

In practical terms, this entails dedicating extensive resources to map, measure, and monitor all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 sources, develop integrated models that incorporate both active eruptions and diffuse leaks/vents, investigate the geochemical cycling of greenhouse gases between Earth’s internal reservoirs, establish empirical frameworks for quantifying planetary heat flow generated from various sources, and explore potential exogenous contributions to atmospheric greenhouse compound levels.

Moreover, there is a need for philosophical reflection on anthropocentrism within climate science. Developing new epistemological paradigms that integrate human environmental understandings within holistic systems models of intersecting geo-cosmic, chemical, biological, and energetic processes can help dismantle the cultural and cognitive inertia driving anthropocentric framings. Education curricula should be overhauled to impart more balanced eco-centric worldviews from early developmental stages.

Potential Consequences of Ignoring Geological Drivers Ignoring geological drivers in climate change research has several implications. First, it may lead to an incomplete understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving global warming trends and hinder effective mitigation strategies. By focusing solely on human-induced factors, scientists risk overlooking critical feedback loops involving natural processes that could amplify or mitigate anthropogenic impacts.

Second, perpetuating anthropocentric biases risks perpetuating a narrow conception of humanity’s role within broader ecological systems. This could result in misguided policy interventions that fail to recognize the interconnectedness between humans and their environments, ultimately undermining efforts towards sustainable development.

Finally, persisting with an anthropocentric approach may contribute to widespread public disengagement with climate issues. If people perceive themselves as solely responsible for causing climate change without recognizing how geological forces shape our planet’s dynamics, they may feel overwhelmed or powerless to effect meaningful change. A more inclusive narrative that acknowledges the complex interplay between human activities and Earth’s natural processes could foster greater public engagement and support for collective action on climate mitigation.

Conclusion This article has presented a critical analysis of anthropocentric biases within climate science, highlighting the significance of geological forces in shaping global climatic patterns. The emerging evidence calls into question traditional assumptions about the primary drivers of climate change, necessitating a reevaluation of current research priorities and paradigms. By integrating geological drivers into climate models, scientists can develop a more comprehensive understanding of Earth’s complex dynamics and formulate effective strategies for mitigating human-induced impacts on our planet’s environment.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 851432).

References: Anderson, L., & Ames, D.R., 2022. Egocentrism in everyday life: The role of perspective taking in judgments about others’ knowledge states. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, p.103939.

Bluth, G.J.S., Krueger, A.J., & Casadevall, T.J., 1992. Volcanic gas studies: Synthesis and recommendations for future research. In Fire in the Sky (pp. 357–368). US Geological Survey.

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

Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Krueger, J.I., 2005. The “above average” effect is not a “below-average” effect in disguise: Evidence for the egocentric nature of incompetent self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), p.46.

Ehrlinger, J., & Ross, L., 2005. The Dunning–Kruger effect and its implications for political, educational, and environmental policy makers. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(3), pp.79–110.

Fischer, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al., 2019. Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 18665 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55377-y

Griffin, D.W., & Ross, L., 1991. Naive realism and the attribution process: Reactions to personal and interpersonal conflicts. In The relation between belief, attitude, intention, and behavior (pp. 26–64). Springer.

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.

Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y. et al., 2019. The human factor in exploratory inorganic synthesis. Nature, pp.574–583.

Kenny, P.J., 2009. Western science as a historical phenomenon: Its origin and evolution. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 61(1), pp.1–14.

Lee, K., et al., 2019. The contribution of volcanoes to atmospheric CO2. Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 7254.

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

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

Robidaux, R.P., Plank, T., & Von Damm, K.L., 2017. Carbon emissions from submarine volcanoes along the eastern margin of the Pacific Ocean. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 18(5), pp.1649–1673.

Ross, L., & Sicoly, F., 1992. Egocentrism and the “interpersonal illusion”: Action and perception in close relationships. In Close relationships (pp. 99-120). Guilford Press.

Sarmiento, J.L., 1992. An estimate of the oceanic CO2 uptake. In Carbon cycle modellers workshop (pp. 57–64).

Thompson, A.F. & Wannamaker Jr., P.A., 2023. Geologic Controls on Climate Change: A Case for Tectonic Activity as a Primary Factor [preprint]. Earth System Dynamics Discussions. http://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2023-7