The CNN article I just skimmed about this has a very interesting science communication issue. It notes that originally the solid inner core rotated faster than the rest of the planet, but that in 2010 it rotated slower than the rest of the planet. It's not clear from CNN's article:<p>1. Whether the inner core was or was not observed to spin faster than the rest of the planet
2. Whether the inner core changed (relative?) speed in 2010 or whether its behavior was confirmed in 2010, or
3. Perhaps most interestingly, whether the inner core had spun faster than the rest of the planet and we happened to be alive at the time when, for the first time in our planet's 4.6 billion year history, that changed in 2010, or whether they swap rotation rates now and then.<p>This is not really criticism. Science communication is hard. Hell, I've probably misrepresented CNN's representation 2-3 times in this comment.
> The inner core is usually thought to be shaped like a ball, but its edges may actually have deformed by 100m or more in height in places, according to Prof John Vidale who led the research.<p>Is this not within the margin of error for our understanding of the boundary?<p>It would not surprise me if the boundary is a place where there is no clear difference between solid and liquid, such that the solid edges of the core are always transient. Phase change diagrams in chemistry show regions where matter is simultaneously a liquid and a solid at temperatures and pressures that do not occur in daily life. Presumably, under immense pressure and temperature, the core's boundary would be a place where this occurs.<p>I am not an expert in physics, so take what I say here with a grain of salt.
Quite an understatement:<p>> The core is about 4,000 miles from the Earth's surface and, despite best efforts, scientists have so far been unable to reach it.
What would happen with society if we find out that we have avout 500 years before our magnetic shield disappears and the atmosphere will be gone 200 years later. Would we finally work together to somehow try to find a fix or will the world turn into anarchy?
Growing up I was very interested in space and I had come to think of planetary evolution to be just sort of a process that reaches a natural balance that is "now".<p>These days a lot of the science I consume seems to have a better understanding of the past and that "balance" is just seen as a stage in ongoing planetary change.<p>Of course I thought of that evolution as just the outside of a planet, but it makes sense that the inside matters too.<p>It's interesting how different things can be along various stages and dynamics at play.
Isn't this Nature article more accurate? <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00395-7" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00395-7</a>