Is the ocean broken?

Sure is amazing the stuff scientists can figure out!

The inner core does not cool the outer core. The outer core cools the inner core. And the mantle cools the outer core. And the crust cools the mantle. All of Earth's heat is lost through its crust --- and then through its atmosphere---and then by radiation into space.

"The movement of liquid iron in the outer core carries heat away from the inner core, causing it to freeze"

"Every layer in the Earth is controlled by what's above it, and influences what's below it," he said. "The inner core is slowly freezing out of the liquid outer core, like a snowball adding more layers. The outer core is then cooled by the mantle above it..."​

No. The crust floats on the mantle because the crust is less dense than the mantle. And the mantle floats on the core, because the mantle is less dense than the core.

The average density of oceanic crust is 3.0 g/cm3, while continental crust has an average of 2.7 g/cm3.

The mantle has a density of 4.5 g/cm3

The density of the inner 'solid' core is between 9.9-12.2 g/cm3 and the outer core's density is between 12.6-13 g/cm3.​

Not sure what you mean by "harmonic displacement" but the article said:

However, this asymmetric growth doesn't mean that the inner core itself is misshapen or at risk of becoming imbalanced, the researchers said.​

and

Gravity corrects for the lopsided growth in the east by pushing new crystals toward the west.​

 

I have always enjoyed scifi as entertainment. Only entertainment. AGWers cite their scifi narrative as settled facts. Why is climate science settled in their opinion? Because their arguments can't survive scrutiny and debate! Claiming the science is settled means not open to question or debate. They are terrified of debate!

 

The asymmetric growth requires gravity to correct. This means the inner core has to move back to center. The motion then imparts an inertia into the inner core which means it takes force to stop it. At the center, there is no net force acting upon the movement of the inner core except the resistance of outer core displacement. Thus, it seems reasonable to me, the inner core over shoots the middle before gravity again pulls it back towards the middle. This should repeat itself in ever smaller cycles until another lopsided growth starts out going again. This is the definition of a driven harmonic system.

So, are you saying the inner core is hotter than the outer core?

-Will

 

I suspect it's a continual process. My guess is that the inner core doesn't wait until it's a trillion tons out of balance, then decide to re-center itself. It re-centers itself as soon as it's one atom out of balance

YES

Why is the inner core solid even though it is hotter than the outer core?

The inner core is indeed hotter than the outer core. However, the PRESSURE on the inner core is greater than the pressure on the outer core and the melting point of iron, the main constituent of the core, INCREASES as the pressure goes up. So, because the pressure effect overrides the temperature effect, the inner core is solidified.


We also can speculate that the inner core began to freeze (solidify) about 1 or two billion years ago. the inner core makes up only 1% of the mass of the Earth; the outer core makes up about 32% of the mass of the Earth.​

 

Future of the human climate niche

We show that for thousands of years, humans have concentrated in a surprisingly narrow subset of Earth’s available climates, characterized by mean annual temperatures around ∼13 °C. This distribution likely reflects a human temperature niche related to fundamental constraints. We demonstrate that depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, over the coming 50 y, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 y. Absent climate mitigation or migration, a substantial part of humanity will be exposed to mean annual temperatures warmer than nearly anywhere today.​

Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

So we still have glaciers. Good.
On the other hand, glaciers interfere with carbon absorbing plant growth.

 

Here Are America’s Top Methane Emitters. Some Will Surprise You.

• Five of the fossil fuel industry's top ten emitters of methane are little-known oil and gas producers
  
• The largest emitter, Hilcorp Energy, reported almost 50 percent more methane emissions from its operations than the nation’s largest fossil fuel producer, Exxon Mobil
  
• As oil and gas giants shift away from fossil fuels, they are shedding some of their most polluting assets to companies that provide almost no transparency into their operations
  
• In some cases, the companies are buying up high-polluting assets directly from the largest oil and gas corporations
• In other cases, private equity firms acquire risky oil and gas properties, develop them, and sell them quickly for maximum profits

 

Where are the worlds greatest greenhouse gas emitters? A clue, it's not America!

 

2 names: Solamere and Bain.

 

There’s an invisible climate threat seeping from grocery store freezers

• Most supermarkets in America use hydrofluorocarbons refrigerants to operate their coolers and freezers
• These are greenhouse gases thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide
  
• The industry estimates that every year supermarkets lose an average of 25 percent of their refrigerant charge; other estimates are even higher
  
• The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a public call for companies to report production and import data on HFCs
• Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act the EPA must phase down the production and import of these potent greenhouse gases 85 percent over the next 15 years

 

This is something I'd like to explore a little more, but I haven't the time right now. I'll get back to you.

-Will

 

http://www.phaseoutfacts.org/fluorocarbon refrigerants.aspx

The Ozone Layer | UCAR Center for Science Education https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/ozone-layer

Now here's the thing I'm interested in.
CFCs are reported to be over a thousand times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. However, the Sun's UV rays breaks it up into Chlorine, Florine and Carbon. Each of these three elements are very reactive with oxygen. But Oxygen will also bond with itself forming O2 and O3 in the Stratosphere where it blocks over 90%of the Sun's UV rays from reaching the surface by absorbing those rays.

I presume the constant bombardment of energy in the form of UV light means the finite amount of oxygen has a saturation point and must release an equal amount of energy in the form of IR light. This would mean roughly half of that energy went back out while the other half went down to the Troposphere and the ground.

Now I was originally thinking in terms of the CFCs as behaving like the refrigerant that it was and thus cooling as it rose into the atmosphere while expanding under lower pressure, but if it breaks up in the Stratosphere, it would loose most of its energy as it begins break up in the atmosphere again from the Sun's UV rays. Again, more energy would be released as its constituent parts combine with Oxygen and destroy O2 and O3 molecules. This means the Stratosphere would warm even more than usual and IR would radiate off as well as down only to be carried back up by more warming expanding molecules. So, I can see the concern for the damage CFCs do to the Ozone layer. Apparently one Chlorine molecule can destroy hundreds or thousands of O2 and O3 molecules. However, I can't see how CFCs can actually have a dilatarious effect as a greenhouse gas if it carries its heat to the Stratosphere and disperses it so close to outer space.

Not that leaking CFCs or HFCs or any other man made gas that isn't oxygen into the atmosphere isn't cause for concern, but I can't imagine the quantities of these leaking fluorocarbons even begin to approach the industrial carbon we are pouring into our atmosphere, even at thousands of times the effect. Until I read more information that convinces me otherwise, I characterize this information about CFCs as reporters pressing the "greenhouse gas" buzzword button for headline grabbing.

-Will

 

Seems like a reasonable assumption.

Possibly true, but probably irrelevant, because all(?) gasses act as a refrigerant, in that as they expand they also cool. The article on CFCs even mentioned that CO2 was a possible replacement for CFCs. So the cooling phenomena you mentioned, as gases rise and expand in the atmosphere, would be a common process already. Furthermore, those gasses will also sink, at times, and heat up. So it sounds like an energy wash to me.

I'm not an atmospheric chemist, but it seems to me that if it requires sunlight to prompt these reactions, then the reactions may be absorbing energy, not releasing energy. Either way, I doubt that these reactions are but a trivial part of the total energy budget.

Like I said above, I don't think that CFCs carry any more heat to the stratosphere than any other gas, particularly given the fact that Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and CO2 constitute the 99+% of the atmosphere.

Certainly CO2 is the biggy, but CFCs are not insignificant, and are low-hanging fruit in the battle to combat AGW.

The warming influence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased substantially in recent years.
The rising presence of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning is the largest overall driver. The relatively smaller
but significant warming impact from releases of the most abundantly produced CFCs (CFC11 and CFC12)
will continue to persist for many further decades into the future.[6]
​

Chlorofluorocarbon - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Impact_as_greenhouse_gases

 

You're going to be happy when we're living in the new stone age.

 

Better than Hell, which seems to be your preferred destination.