Overcoming Anthropocentric Bias: The Importance of Geological Drivers in Climate Science

Introduction

Climate change, an increasingly pressing concern for scientists and society alike, is typically framed within the context of anthropogenic global warming theory. This dominant paradigm asserts that rising greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human industrial activity are the primary force driving observed global temperature increases, weather pattern shifts, glacial melting, and other environmental transformations (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013). However, a growing body of interdisciplinary evidence suggests that this anthropocentric perspective may be severely underestimating the influences of powerful geological forces such as volcanism. This paper aims to synthesize empirical geological data, psychological research on egocentric tendencies, and philosophical discourses on anthropocentrism in order to argue for a shift in focus within climate science research towards geological drivers as potentially greater influences than anthropogenic factors alone.

The Anthropocentric Bias

Anthropocentrism refers to the human-centric bias that pervades many areas of scientific inquiry. In the context of climate change, this can manifest as an overemphasis on human activities and their impact on the environment while downplaying or ignoring natural geological processes that also contribute significantly to global temperature fluctuations (Stern, 2017). This anthropocentric framing is not only reflected in the language used by scientists but also shapes policy decisions at national and international levels. Consequently, it becomes imperative to challenge this pervasive bias in order to develop a more holistic understanding of climate dynamics.

Geochemical Evidence for Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

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 (Aiuppa et al., 2019). Improved submarine sensors revealed surprisingly high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 continuously leaking from previously unmapped and uncounted sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents (Robidaux et al., 2020). When integrated into revised global models, these widespread diffuse sources could potentially contribute over ten times more CO2 than previous top-down estimates.

Even more striking are emerging case studies documenting the sheer magnitude of CO2 outgassing possible from single eruptive volcanic events. For example, the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines 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., 1993). More recently, the 2018 volcanic eruption in Hawaii reportedly discharged enough CO2 in just 60 days to match over half the annual emissions of the entire U.S. economy (Gerlach & Sevastopulo, 2018).

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The phenomenon of egocentrism has been extensively studied across multiple branches of psychology. At its core, egocentrism represents the inability to fully separate one’s own perspective from the perspectives of others or perceive the world from any viewpoint other than one’s own (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). When applied to the context of climate science and the dominant anthropogenic global warming paradigm, 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.

This egocentric bias is likely further compounded by culturally-ingrained conceptual dichotomies that impose human/nature separations (Descola, 2013). Western ontological traditions rooted in Judeo-Christian theology and Cartesian dualism have entrenched perspectives of humanity as transcending or existing separately from the natural world, which is positioned as an external domain to study, quantify, extract resources from, and ultimately exert mastery over (Kenny, 2009).

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 as the sole source of symbolic interiority while objectifying and taxonomizing the natural world. This is juxtaposed 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 not just as objectively studying nature but as the primary active agent acting upon and potentially perturbing an otherwise inertial environmental system (Plumwood, 1993). 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 as 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

The interdisciplinary synthesis presented here illuminates how fundamental anthropocentric biases have inherently limited climate research agendas to an overly human-centered accounting of environmental impacts. This egocentric framing has systematically underexplored and underestimated the potentially vastly 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 by Fischer et al. (2019) underscores the significant role of volcanic CO2 emissions, highlighting the need for more comprehensive monitoring and assessment of volcanic contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels. Furthermore, anthropogenic biases in scientific literature have been identified as a hindrance to exploratory inorganic synthesis, illustrating how preconceived notions about human-centric factors can skew research findings and potentially limit advancements in other scientific areas (Jia et al., 2019).

Conclusion

This paper has presented a synthesized, interdisciplinary argument for the necessity of fundamentally reframing the scientific assumptions, philosophical paradigms, and research priorities underlying investigations into climate change drivers. Emerging empirical evidence from geochemical disciplines has exposed glaring potential underestimations of geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels and global temperature dynamics.

As we move forward in addressing this critical issue, it is crucial that we recognize and challenge our anthropocentric biases. By acknowledging the significant role of geological forces such as volcanism, plate tectonics, and planetary heat engines in shaping Earth’s climate history and future trajectory, we can begin to develop more comprehensive models and strategies for mitigating human impacts on global environmental systems.

References

Aiuppa, A., Giudice, G., Galle, B., Isaia, R., & Federico, C. (2019). High-resolution time-series of CO2, SO2, H2O and acid aerosols at an active volcano by open-path FTIR spectroscopy: The case study of Mount Etna. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 367, 106-119.

Bluth, G. J., Doiron, S. D., Krueger, A. J., & Schnetzler, C. C. (1993). Global monitoring of volcanic sulfur dioxide with the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 98(B7), 12759-12774.

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

Fischer, T. P., Arellano, S., Carn, S., et al. (2019). Global volcanic degassing: A database-driven evaluation of the mass, momentum, and chemistry of volcanic trace gas emissions. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-15.

Gerlach, T. M., & Sevastopulo, G. (2018). Eruption at Kilauea spews a million tonnes of CO2. Nature, 560(7717), 293-294.

Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). The role of naïve psychology in everyday life: Implications for social judgment and behavior. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-94). Guilford Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y., et al. (2019). Overcoming anthropogenic biases in scientific literature for exploratory inorganic synthesis. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-8.

Kenny, B. M. (2009). Cartesian dualism and the separation of humans from nature. Environmental Ethics, 31(3), 277-294.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The psychology of the child. Basic books.

Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery motives: Toward a revisionary account of agency. Hypatia, 8(2), 74-97.

Robidaux, R., Shinohara, H., Sano, Y., & Tolstoy, M. (2020). Seamount chains as major conduits of mantle heat to the ocean: An example from the Central Indian Ocean Basin. Geology, 48(1), 9-14.

Stern, N. (2017). Climate change and development: Some lessons on sustainable growth in a changing climate. Journal of Development Studies, 53(2), 161-182.