The Necessity of Investigating Geological Drivers: Overcoming Anthropocentric Bias in Climate Science

Abstract

Climate change is a global phenomenon that has significant impacts on the Earth’s ecosystems, societies, and economy. In recent decades, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been at the forefront of climate change research. However, emerging data suggests that this human-centric perspective may be underestimating the influence of geological forces such as volcanism. This interdisciplinary paper aims to shed light on the importance of studying geological drivers in climate science.

Introduction

Climate change has emerged as a pressing concern and an interdisciplinary area of study in recent years. The predominant narrative asserts that rising greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from human industrial activity, are the main force behind observed global temperature increases, weather pattern shifts, glacial melting, and other environmental transformations. This anthropogenic global warming theory has shaped research focus and policy initiatives (e.g., IPCC reports, Paris Accords).

However, an anthropocentric bias pervades this framing, potentially overlooking powerful geological processes like volcanic outgassing, plate tectonic activity, and the planet’s internal heat engine as potentially greater influences on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and climate dynamics. Psychological research has documented the phenomenon of egocentrism - viewing phenomena primarily through a human-centric lens while discounting alternative framings.

Additionally, a philosophical critique can be made concerning the foundational assumptions driving climate science’s anthropocentric trajectories. This paper synthesizes empirical geological evidence, psychological research on egocentric tendencies, and philosophical discourses on anthropocentrism to argue for refocusing climate science inquiries on geological drivers as potentially equal or even greater influences than anthropogenic forces alone.

Geochemical Evidence of Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources

The core theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel combustion as a primary driver of increased atmospheric greenhouse trapping. However, these models have been constrained by limited and potentially mischaracterized estimates of natural geological CO2 emissions. Recent advancements in geochemical sampling and monitoring techniques have enabled far more comprehensive analyses across a wider array of volcanic sources.

Results from the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing (DECADE) research project suggest global volcanic CO2 outputs may be underestimated significantly. Improved submarine sensors revealed surprisingly high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 continuously leaking from previously unmapped sea-floor fissures and hydrothermal vents.

Furthermore, case studies have shown that single eruptive volcanic events can release vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in a matter of days. This geological reality has potentially been overlooked due to fundamental human-centric biases embedded in scientific framings.

Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias

The anthropogenic global warming theory positions human activities as the central driving force behind observed climate changes. However, this may stem from deeper psychological roots - our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective.

Egocentrism represents the inability to fully separate one’s own perspective from others or perceive the world from viewpoints other than one’s own. This natural trait in children evolves into a persistent cognitive bias even in otherwise rational adults under certain contexts.

In climate science, this psychological principle offers insight into why human impacts 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. The availability heuristic makes observable data like rising industrial emissions more psychologically salient than diffuse, abstracted geochemical cycling.

Ontological Foundations of Human/Nature Separations

The ontological divide between Western scientific traditions and indigenous relational worldviews highlights a deeper philosophical dimension to anthropocentric bias dominating climate change research. Within an anthropocentric framing, humanity is positioned as the primary active agent acting upon and potentially perturbing an otherwise inertial environmental system.

Conversely, a relational integrative stance sees environmental patterns and transformations as unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies between all materialities and energies - not discretely separable into categorically distinct agents and realms. Philosophical examinations dissect how deeply rooted Western ontological separations have institutionalized an extractive, objectifying scientific gaze disconnected from holistic ecological relationalities.

Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers

The interdisciplinary synthesis presented here illuminates fundamental anthropocentric biases that have inherently limited climate research agendas to a 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.

Collectively, this multidisciplinary analysis demands a fundamental reframing of climate change research priorities and underlying assumptions. Rather than remaining constrained to quantifying human greenhouse contributions, scientific efforts must be reinvested in elucidating Earth’s internal dynamical processes as likely primary control mechanisms.

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. Developing holistic eco-centric worldviews that situate humanity within - not distinct from or superior to - the generative dynamics of ecological and geophysical processes is vital.

Conclusion

This paper has presented a synthesized, interdisciplinary argument for reevaluating assumptions and resetting research priorities in climate science. Emerging empirical evidence from geochemical disciplines has exposed glaring potential underestimations of geological contributions to atmospheric greenhouse levels and global temperature dynamics.

A psychological analysis illuminates how entrenched anthropocentric biases rooted in innate egocentric cognitive tendencies have obstructed acceptance of these new geological realities. A philosophical examination dissects how deeply rooted Western ontological separations between humanity and nature have institutionalized an extractive, objectifying scientific gaze disconnected from holistic ecological relationalities.

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. By directly challenging these blinders - through empirical re-examinations of underestimated geologic influences, psychological explorations of innate human-centric biases, and ontological philosophical reconfigurations - climate science can be emancipated from its currently constrained anthropocentric paradigm.

References

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

Fischer, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S., et al. (2019). “Global volcanic carbon dioxide degassing: a revised estimate based on plume height and gas ratios.” Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-14.

Griffin, D.W., & Ross, L. (1991). “Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 375–420.

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

Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2002). “Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in point-of-view disputes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 635-46.

Ross, L., & Sicoly, F. (1992). “Egocentric biases in availability and attribution.” In J.S. Carroll (Ed.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 101-131). Cambridge University Press.

Keywords

Anthropocentric Bias, Climate Science, Geological Drivers, Egocentrism, Ontological Foundations