I guess what i am saying is that I am not seeing how we have the knowledge that just because there is a gradient we have proved that earth is definitely cooling as an entire system. Do we really know that enough time has passed such that everything should have evened out by now, or that such a large gradient could not exist?
While acknowleding the various complexities you mention about how heat is transported; we do know from the large temperature gradient that Earth is radiating more energy than it receives. There is a flow of energy from the core to the surface, as shown by the gradient, and energy is not accumulating at the surface, as shown by the more or less fixed temperature over a scale of years.
I can accept this way of handling why we can know if it is cooling or not, though now I am confused as it seems you are saying it is not cooling.
There could be two possible sources of the heat flowing up to the surface from the core. One possibility is that the Earth is cooling from an initially molten state. Another is that there is some continuous source of energy within the Earth which is maintaining its high temperature.
If there was no source of energy, the Earth would have long since cooled to solid cold rock. It would take hundreds of thousands of years; but the Earth is over 4
billion years old. This was a problem for geology in the nineteenth century; geology made the Earth seem old, physics and thermodynamics suggested it was much younger.
But there is a source of energy. The heat of the core is maintained by radioactive decay, and this energy transports to the surface as heat flow; by both conduction and convection. The temperature gradient is a consequence of this steady flow of heat, and the gradient is an infallible indicator of a flow of heat energy from the core to the surface.
Cheers -- Sylas