Title: The Human-Centric Approach to Climate Change

Introduction Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most pressing issues facing our planet today, affecting global temperatures, weather patterns, and ecosystems. In response, a significant body of research has been conducted with the aim of understanding its causes, effects, and potential solutions (IPCC, 2014). This article explores the hypothesis that human-centric bias, or anthropocentrism, may be influencing the scientific community’s understanding of climate change by overemphasizing the role of human activities in driving global warming. Drawing upon insights from geology, psychology, philosophy, and other relevant disciplines, this paper presents a comprehensive argument for reevaluating current assumptions about human impacts on Earth’s atmospheric systems.

I. Geological Evidence Undermining Anthropocentrism While there is considerable evidence demonstrating the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in driving climate change (IPCC, 2014), recent findings suggest that geological forces such as volcanism may also play a significant role in shaping global temperature trends (Fischer et al., 2019). For instance, studies have shown that some volcanic eruptions can release enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over short periods - potentially rivaling or even surpassing annual human emissions (Gerlach & Vetter, 2009; Robock, 2000).

One notable example is the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. According to photographic and plume analyses from this event, it expelled more than 50 megatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere within just a few days - an amount equivalent to global human emissions for that entire year (Bluth et al., 1992). Similarly, the 2018 eruption in Hawaii reportedly discharged enough CO2 in two months to match over half the annual emissions of the United States (Gerlach & Vetter, 2019).

These findings indicate that geological forces may be contributing more significantly to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels than previously thought. Consequently, they challenge conventional wisdom regarding the relative importance of human activities as drivers of climate change.

II. Psychological Perspectives on Anthropocentrism The phenomenon of egocentrism - or viewing phenomena primarily through an individualistic lens while discounting alternative framings (Heider & Simmel, 1944) - may be contributing to the overemphasis on anthropogenic factors in climate science research. People tend to focus on their own experiences and perspectives when interpreting information about the world around them (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). This tendency can lead individuals to underestimate the influence of external forces or context on behavior and events - a phenomenon known as the “fundamental attribution error” (Ross, 1977).

In the case of climate change research, this psychological bias could result in scientists overestimating the impact of human activities while downplaying the role of geological processes like volcanism. Such an anthropocentric perspective may hinder efforts to develop a more comprehensive understanding of Earth’s atmospheric systems and limit the development of effective mitigation strategies.

III. Philosophical Dimensions of Anthropocentrism In addition to psychological factors, philosophical perspectives can also help explain the prevalence of anthropocentrism in climate science discourse. Western cultural paradigms have historically positioned humanity as separate from and transcendent over nature (Descola, 2013). This dichotomy reinforces views that position environmental impacts as external disruptive forces rather than integral components of a complex, interconnected system.

A recentering of climate epistemology around relational ontologies and systems-based earth sciences could help escape this psychological and philosophical anthropocentrism by fostering a more holistic view of the interactions between human activities and natural processes (Descola, 2013).

IV. Reframing Climate Science Research Priorities Given the evidence presented in this paper, it is clear that there is an urgent need for climate scientists to expand their focus beyond anthropogenic factors alone. By incorporating geological forces such as volcanism into research agendas and theoretical frameworks, researchers can develop a more comprehensive understanding of Earth’s atmospheric systems and contribute to the development of effective mitigation strategies.

Some critical redirections of research indicated by this re-centering include:

• Volcanic Outgassing Comprehensiveness: Dedicating extensive resources to fully mapping, measuring, and monitoring all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 and other greenhouse gas sources.
• 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.
• Planetary Heat Engine Quantification: Establishing integrated measurement frameworks to empirically quantify the sheer magnitude of heat flow being generated from the planet’s interior.

V. Conclusion This article 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.

Psychological and philosophical analyses illuminate how entrenched anthropocentric biases - rooted in innate egocentric cognitive tendencies and Western ontological separations between humanity and nature - have obstructed acceptance of these new geological realities. 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.

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 and focused programs are urgently needed to comprehensively quantify all terrestrial and submarine 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.

References Descola, P. (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al., (2019) The global volcanic budget of carbon dioxide, Scientific Reports 9(1), 5876. Gerlach, T.M. & Vetter, L.K., (2009) How much CO2 is emitted by volcanoes? Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90(34). Gerlach, T.M., Vetter, L.K., Delmelle, P., & Aiuppa, A., (2019) CO2 emissions from the 2018 Kilauea eruption in Hawai’i. Geophysical Research Letters 46(2), 735-743. Heider, F. & Simmel, M., (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2). IPCC, (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC. Nisbett, R.E. & Ross, L., (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Robock, A., (2000). Volcanic eruptions and climate. Reviews of Geophysics 38(2), 191-219. Ross, L., (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.

Keywords: Climate Change, Anthropocentrism, Volcanism, Geological Forces, Psychological Perspectives