Today's graphs are the culmination of the software module upgrade and database restructuring.
That "Golden" totals to 217 Zones taken from all WOD layers containing data, (today's graphs are all from that dataset).
Not using the fences increases the resolution so that you can see glimpses of both the T pattern and the CT pattern individually at several places.
The graph at Fig. 2 is the exact same data with the fences included.
I included both graph types so you can see that the calculated TEOS CT is quite close to the in situ measurement values (T), but they are not exactly the same.
The graph at Fig. 3 once again reaffirms that the Absolute Salinity (SA) and the in situ salinity measurement, Practical Salinity (SP), vary more than the T and CT temperatures do.
As I indicated in a recent post (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 29), that is to be expected because SP involves measuring by ascertaining conductivity, while SA involves calculating mass (H2O and non-H2O content) factors.
|Fig. 5 WOD Zones with in situ data (blue squares)|
The expansion / contraction pattern ends at 4.82% (8.92699 ÷ 185.157 = 0.048213084 ... 4.82%) of the PSMSL sea level value as recorded by tide gauge stations.
Regular readers know that for years Dredd Blog calculations of thermal expansion were based on a 5.1% value for thermal expansion (e.g. On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction).
That 5.1% was the percent left over after accounting for ice sheet loss (melt-water increase) and ghost water (gravity-held ocean water release) relocation (NASA Busts The Ghost).
The previous post in this series is here.
Lyrics to "25 Or 6 To 4"