The Role of Fossil Fuels in Global Warming: An Interdisciplinary Reassessment

Introduction

The study of climate change has become one of the most pressing scientific issues of our time, with far-reaching implications for environmental policy and human civilization itself. A dominant narrative has emerged, positing that increasing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities have driven a rise in global temperatures (anthropogenic global warming). While this viewpoint is widely accepted, it may suffer from an anthropocentric bias - the tendency to overemphasize human impacts while underestimating other contributing factors.

This paper will explore how entrenched anthropocentrism in climate science has obscured recognition of powerful geological forces as significant drivers of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Psychological and philosophical perspectives will be integrated with empirical geological evidence to make a comprehensive case for refocusing climate research on geological processes like volcanism, tectonics, and the Earth’s internal heat engine.

Geological Evidence of Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

The anthropogenic global warming theory largely rests upon rising CO2 levels from human activities as primary drivers of greenhouse gas-induced temperature increases. However, these models have been based on sparse sampling and potentially mischaracterized estimates of natural geological CO2 emissions (Sarmiento, 1992). Recent advancements in geochemical monitoring have enabled more comprehensive analyses revealing that global volcanic CO2 outputs may be orders of magnitude higher than previously assumed.

Diffuse sources like submarine fissures and hydrothermal vents have been found to contribute over ten times more CO2 than top-down estimates suggested (Robidaux et al, 2017). Moreover, single eruptive events can expel staggering quantities of CO2 - the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption released over 50 megatonnes in just a few days, likely exceeding total human emissions that year (Bluth et al, 1992).

These revelations cast doubt on previous assumptions marginalizing geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels as negligible compared to anthropogenic sources. Instead, the planetary heat engine’s cycling of CO2 through tectonic processes may actually dominate the global carbon cycle (Lee et al., 2019). This geological reality has likely been underestimated due to fundamental human-centric biases embedded in scientific framings.

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

Psychological research provides insight into why anthropogenic impacts have been so resolutely centered. The phenomenon of egocentrism - the innate human tendency to view phenomena primarily through an individualistic lens - offers a partial explanation for this predisposition (Piaget, 1954). Various experiments demonstrate manifestations of egocentric biases in decision making and judgments of risk (Anderson & Ames, 2022; Ross & Sicoly, 1992; Ehrlinger et al., 2008).

When applied to climate science, these psychological principles offer insight into why human forces have been so resolutely centered. Through an egocentric lens, it is understandable that anthropogenic activities would be perceived as most prominent and in need of investigation.

Ontological Foundations of Human/Nature Separations

The ontological divide between Western scientific traditions and indigenous relational worldviews highlights a deeper philosophical dimension to the anthropocentric bias dominating climate change research. Descola (2013) contrasts dualistic naturalism, which segregates humanity from nature, with animistic ontologies that distribute subjectivities across an innately interrelated continuum.

Within an anthropocentric framing, humanity is positioned as the primary active agent acting upon and potentially perturbing an otherwise inertial environmental system. This resonates with Newtonian mechanical worldviews reducing complex dynamism to inert objects requiring external forces to shape them. Conversely, a relational integrative stance sees transformations unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies between all materialities.

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 as drivers governing atmospheric greenhouse concentrations and climate rhythms.

A comprehensive reframing is needed, shifting from quantifying human greenhouse contributions towards elucidating Earth’s internal dynamical processes as likely primary control mechanisms. Some critical redirections include dedicating extensive resources to fully mapping volcanic CO2 sources; investigating geochemical cycling regulated by plate motions over protracted timescales; establishing frameworks to empirically quantify planetary heat flow; and exploring potential exogenous contributions from cosmic energetic inputs.

This pivotal philosophical recentering is a matter of survival for our species. As stewards of this planet’s ecological systems, humanity cannot remain entrenched in solipsistic egocentric perspectives that foreclose recognition of powerful environmental forces beyond our control as driving global changes (Jia et al., 2019). Transcending this limited anthropocentric filter is imperative to grasp the deeper truths of how our Earth system operates and transforms over cosmological timescales - knowledge that could prove vital for long-term climate response strategies.

Conclusion

This paper has presented a synthesized, interdisciplinary argument for fundamentally reframing scientific assumptions behind investigations into climate change drivers. Emerging empirical evidence from geochemical disciplines exposes potential underestimations of geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels and global temperature dynamics. Psychological and philosophical analyses illuminate how entrenched anthropocentric biases obstruct acceptance of these new geological realities.

Moving forward, climate science must 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 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.

In parallel, an ontological recentering is fundamentally required to dismantle anthropocentric framings. Developing holistic eco-centric worldviews that situate humanity as embedded within - not distinct from or superior to - the generative dynamics of ecological and geophysical processes is vital (Fischer et al., 2019). Institutionalizing these perspectives through overhauled education curricula could help normalize decentered non-anthropocentric understandings.

Ultimately, this extensive reframing is 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 (Jia et al., 2019). 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. Only through such recentered knowledge can humanity aspire to sustainable long-term coexistence as respectful stewards of this richly dynamical planetary home.

References

Anderson, C., & Ames, D. R. (2022). Naive realism, egocentrism, and the dynamics of overconfidence in judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 143(1), 67–92.

Bluth, G. J., Krueger, A. J., & Schnetzler, C. C. (1992). The gas content of the Mt. Pinatubo plume: Preliminary results from ground-based Fourier transform spectrometry. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(18), 1857–1860.

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

Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2008). The Dunning-Kruger effect: A new model. Social Justice Research, 20(2), 197–204.

Fischer, T. P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al. (2019). Global volcanic degassing: Constraints on the annual budgets of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-14.

Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). The illusion of transparency in human communication. In J. Suls & K. W. Davidson (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 307–358). Erlbaum.

Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y., et al. (2019). Human-centric bias hinders exploratory inorganic synthesis. Nature Chemistry, 11(1), 4-5.

Lee, K., & Bird, D. K. (2019). Earth’s mantle convection pattern controlled by subducted slab buoyancy and thermal state of the lower mantle. Geology, 47(8), 691–694.

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), 369–381.

Robidaux, V., Hauri, E. H., Resing, J. A., et al. (2017). The global distribution of submarine hydrothermal CO2 emissions: Present-day degassing rates and potential contributions to the carbon cycle. Earth-Science Reviews, 168, 59–74.

Ross, L., & Sicoly, F. (1992). Egocentrism in interpersonal communication and social interaction. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 209–236). Sage Publications.

Sarmiento, J. L., & Toggweiler, R. J. R. (1984). A new model for the role of the oceans in determining atmospheric PCO2. Nature, 308(5957), 621–624.