I think there are probably quite a lot of ramifications to this news for climateers to consider which I’m too tired to think of. Over to the talkshop massive:
The core of the Earth is nearly 1,000 degrees hotter than previously thought, making it as fiery as the surface of the sun.
Following new experiments, scientists have established that the core temperature is 6,000 C, much higher than the previous estimate of 5,000.
Using X-rays to probe into the behaviour of iron crystals, putting samples of iron under extreme pressure, researchers were able to examine how iron crystals melt and form.
The new tests, using one of the world’s most intense sources of X-rays located at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, the research team were able to re-create the same pressure at the core.
[co-mod:
Here is much better copy, the original press release PDF here http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2209.htm
–Tim]
‘Other people made other measurements and calculations with computers and nothing was in agreement. It was not good for our field that we didn’t agree with each other,’ Agnes Dewaele of the French research agency CEA and a co-author of the new research, told BBC News.
‘We have to give answers to geophysicists, seismologists, geodynamicists – they need some data to feed their computer models,’ Dr Dewaele said.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Have some more gooderer stuff 😉
I’ve also updated the post with a link to the original press release.
This is cited as connected
“Melting Earth’s Core
Yingwei Fei
+
Author Affiliations
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5251 Broad Branch Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Earth’s predominantly iron core is under extreme pressures that range from 136 to 364 GPa (100 GPa ∼ 1 million atm). The core consists of an outer layer that is molten and a solid inner core. The temperature of the core region can be estimated if the melting temperature of iron under such extreme pressures can be determined. Pressures and temperatures corresponding to the conditions at the core can be generated in the laboratory by using two gem-quality single-crystal diamonds coupled with laser heating (see the figure). The challenge, however, is how to accurately determine the melting point under such extremes. On page 464 of this issue, Anzellini et al. (1) use fast in situ synchrotron x-ray diffraction to study melting in the laser-heated diamond-anvil cell. The accurate determination of the melting temperature of iron provides an important constraint on the core temperature, which is essential to understanding how the dynamic Earth works, including its heat budget, generation of its magnetic field, and the thermal evolution of the planet.”
https://www.gl.ciw.edu/static/users/yfei/
https://www.gl.ciw.edu/static/users/yfei/page3/page3.html
Tim: Yes, that’s the technique described in the Mail article. Fascinating stuff.
So it is confirmed that the Earth is more than 99% incandescent blob – just containing more energy than previously thought.
Of course, to a Warmist (or a Luke Warmist, come to that), the surface temperature calculations remain unchanged. Strange, that.
It is obvious that most PhDs stand for “Piled higher and Dumber”. Humble apologies to anyone who deserved their PhD on account of their superior intellect – you are the exception, and deserve all the respect usually accorded to the unexceptional majority.
“Global warming due to CO2”? Give me a break! When you oxidise carbon to carbon dioxide, what do you get? Heat? How much? What happens to it?
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn.
That old statement, the more you learn, the more you realise you don’t know, (or something like that) is so true. I love visiting here. Keep up the good work Roger and Tim.
They take a lot of feeding, those computer models.
WHOOOOA horsey. What does that do to the energy flux coming through the mantle and out of the crust into atmosphere?!?!?!!?
I love that they did it so the modelers would have a number to play with, er, input to their models.
What about the old tradition of providing error estimates to the data?
I can imagine that the old estimate of 5000K has an error, as well as the new one of 6000K, and if that were some 500K, the new estimate would be much different from the old one. If at all, given all the modelling assumptions applied
Much ado about (perhaps) nothing.
This was an extension of a discovery by a japanese? scientist. They found some time ago that earthquake waves travel at different speeds N – S than E – W. He did some quite ingenious experiment with a laser and a very high pressure miniscule chamber using a diamond to do the compressing. X rays were shone onto the sample as the temp and pressure were increased. He noted that the normal diffraction pattern changed from a clearly defined ring to a very unclearly defined ring and hypothesised that this was due to the formation of crystals. His temperature profile was about 5000K, I think.
If true would this be an example of an “unattributed variable”? Does it imply that earth’s own surface temperature, without the warming from the sun, is higher than previously believed? How would this change our understanding of earth’s temperature?
marchesarosa: The values measured for surfacing core heat are what they are – unaffected by any change in theoretical temperatures at the core. However, there will be some ramifications for theories concerning convective circulation of molten material and viscosities under the mantle, for starters.
How is the core’s contribution to the surface temperature measured, please, Roger?
This is extremely unlikely to have any ramifications for surface conditions, it changes nothing, all the measured numbers remain exactly as before.
tchannon,
I won’t try to argue that there would be any significant changes in the surface numbers, but, aren’t many of our measurements based on models of what we believe is happening?? That is, the surface measurements we take are made up of fluxes coming from below, irradiation from the sun, irradiation from clouds and GHG’s, self irradiation from roughness… We therefore have to make some assumptions as to how much the upward flux actually affects the surface temperature to determine the contribution of the incoming and outgoing fluxes all of which are also estimated to a certain extent?
If it’s really that hot inside the planet, what kind of insulation keeps us from roasting from the inside out?
From Penguin Dictionary of Science (6th Ed. 1986)
Earth:
” The core (…) is believed to have (…) a temperature in excess of 6000K.”
KuhnKat says:
April 29, 2013 at 12:18 am
“…aren’t many of our measurements based on models of what we believe is happening??…”
You’re correct. It’s models and estimates based on conjecture with a few inaccurate observations added to the mix. Not much real evidence of what’s going on deep below our planets crust and, as in the world of climate science, no real falsifiable theories.
If we had a good explanation as to why our planet is still so hot after 4.5 billion years, allegedly, that would be a good start to understanding Earth’s energy balance.
Tenuc,
yup, I am thinking that the only number relatively solid in our energy budget is the insolation and TOA outgoing. Since we know it, then the upwelling flux from the core is guesstimated along with the DLR, transpo-evaporation etc. If the upwelling flux is increased due to a significantly higher core estimate it doesn’t leave too many other areas to make a corresponding decrease. DLR would seem to be the obvious number to decrease, but then, I am a denier!! 8>)
Does this mean Gore was 1,000 degrees less wrong than it appeared?