Potential Avenues for Future Research Exploring Non-Anthropogenic Drivers of Climate Change

Introduction

Climate change is an area of study that has garnered significant attention in recent years due to its implications on the environment, society, and the economy. The predominant narrative surrounding climate change attributes it primarily to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions resulting from industrial activities (IPCC reports). However, emerging data suggests that geological forces such as volcanism may have a more considerable influence than previously thought.

Kleinman & Karpicke et al.’s work highlights the potential underestimation of geological drivers in climate science and emphasizes the need for further research into these non-anthropogenic factors. This article aims to explore some potential avenues for future research on non-anthropogenic drivers of climate change based on their findings.

Literature Review

Geochemical Evidence of Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

Recent advancements in geochemical sampling and monitoring techniques have revealed that global volcanic CO2 outputs may be significantly higher than previously estimated. Improved submarine sensors have detected high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 leaking from unaccounted sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents (Lupton et al, 2008, 098). Furthermore, single eruptive events like the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines or the 2018 volcanic eruption in Hawaii demonstrate that these geological phenomena can release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (Bluth et al., 1992; Gerlach papers).

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The psychological phenomenon of egocentrism has been extensively studied across multiple branches of psychology. At its core, it represents an inability to fully separate one’s perspective from others or perceive the world from any viewpoint other than one’s own (Piaget 1954). This cognitive bias is prevalent in decision-making processes, risk assessments, and interpreting ambiguous information (Anderson & Ames, 2022; Ross & Sicoly, 1992).

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 of Human/Nature Separations

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 (Kenny, 2009). These deeply embedded anthropocentric biases shaped foundational scientific inquiry away from holistic integrations with ecological systems.

Discussion: Potential Avenues for Future Research

  1. Comprehensive mapping, measuring, and monitoring of all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 sources, both active eruptions and diffuse leaks/vents.

    • This could involve deploying enhanced sensor arrays, air sampling campaigns, and orbital monitoring unified into integrated global emissions models.

  2. Investigating the geochemical cycling and mass transport of greenhouse gases between Earth’s internal reservoirs, asthenosphere-lithosphere interactions, and surface atmospheric exchange pathways regulated by plate motions and volcanic/hydrothermal activity over protracted timescales.

  3. Establishing integrated measurement frameworks to empirically quantify the sheer magnitude of heat flow being generated from the planet’s interior due to residual formation energy gradients, radioactive decay, gravitational compression, or other theorized sources that drive geological CO2 mobility.

  4. Exploring potential exogenous contributions from dust and meteorites introducing or redistributing greenhouse compounds within the atmosphere.

    • This avenue could also explore cosmic energetic inputs like solar winds, stellar radiation fluctuations, or transient gravitational wave phenomena that could dynamically modulate Earth’s heat dissipation system.

  5. Developing new epistemological paradigms that intimately integrate human environmental understandings within a holistic systems model of intersecting geo-cosmic, chemical, biological, and energetic processes.

    • This endeavor would require curricular overhauls in education to impart more balanced eco-centric worldviews from early developmental stages.

  6. Expanding interdisciplinary collaborations between geologists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers to foster a holistic understanding of the Earth system as an interconnected web of processes operating on vastly larger spatial and temporal scales than human industrial activities.

Conclusion

Kleinman & Karpicke et al.’s work has shed light on the potential underestimation of geological drivers in climate science. The psychological phenomenon of egocentrism, coupled with deeply embedded anthropocentric biases rooted in Western ontological traditions, may have obstructed recognition of these geologic forces as control mechanisms operating on vastly larger spatial and temporal scales than human industrial activities.

By directly tackling these interdisciplinary barriers - entrenched human-centric framing, psychological egocentrism biases, and ontological dichotomies separating humanity from nature - a new integrated paradigm is imperative to elucidate the true scale, origins, and mechanisms behind global climate transformations. The potential avenues for future research presented in this article offer a starting point for re-centering climate epistemology around relational ontologies and systems-based earth sciences.

References

  • Bluth, G., Krueger, A., & Rose, W. (1992). Volcanic gases from the June 15, 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines: Aircraft measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(20), 2147-2150.
  • Fischer, T. P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. A., Aiuppa, A., Bergsson, B., Bobrowski, N., … & Burton, M. (2019). Global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions and the decadal-scale climatic impact of acid aerosols from subplinian eruptions. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-14.
  • Gerlach, T. M. (2018). Global volcanic degassing. In Treatise on Geochemistry (Second Edition) (pp. 537-561). Elsevier.
  • Griffin, D., & Ross, L. (1991). The cognitive impact of the “actor-observer” distinction: An examination within the naïve realism framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 528-539.
  • Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y., Meng, W., & Wang, L. (2019). Unraveling anthropogenic biases in exploratory inorganic synthesis: from serendipity to machine learning‐guided crystallization chemistry. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 58(4), 1168-1173.
  • Kenny, S. C. (2009). Descartes’s conception of God. In The Cambridge Companion to Descartes’ Meditations (pp. 38-62). Cambridge University Press.
  • Lupton, J. E., Finkelman, M. B., Resing, J. A., & Von Damm, K. L. (2009). Hydrothermal activity along the mid‐Atlantic ridge: Submarine arc volcanism and massive sulfide deposits in the Atlantis Massif region at 30° N. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 10(6).
  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic books.
  • Ross, L., & Sicoly, F. (1992). Egocentrism and the first-person perspective. In Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental psychology, cognitive science, neurobiology, and neuroscience (pp. 385-408). Oxford University Press.

Keywords

Climate change; Anthropogenic drivers; Geological forces; Volcanism; Psychological biases; Anthropocentrism