1153 
TABLE V. 
| | | 
| xt | xt 
Shite ome) Ave MVL 2E VID Be VIER eed pes | 
ed EO | | RE baton A | | 
4.03 3.56 2.43 | 1.81 2.93 
+-0.72\—0.38 0.26 —2.29--0.37|— 0.45/41 45 41.41 +0.04 0 19 —0.81 40.31 
oe = | | a | gues Ws xs | : 
followed by a maximum in level in October, the December-level- 
maximum nearly coincides with the maximum in raising-power of 
the wind between December and January. 
We also calculated the raising-power of the monthly windresultants 
and their departures from the normal (5) alone for the Dutch coast 
(Table VI); Fig. 2 shows them with the departures in waterlevel 
(a) on the Dutch coast and those in the Equatorial eurrent (c). 
TABLE VI. 
jn itt wey | ow) va | vm IN Ee 0 
cM. 16.0 
sy —7.0|—5.8|—9.7| 6.1 412.1) +2.6| 41.1) 
| =. 
| EE IE ae 
Fh nn lenen neder eee aad 
Kie GN NE ea | Ph AL | 
The correspondency between the different curves has become 
clearer and we cannot doubt any longer that besides fluctuations in 
the velocity of the Equatorial current, monthly fluctuations in the 
waterraising-power of the wind are responsible for periodical fluctuat- 
ions in the waterlevel of the North-Sea and adjoining seas. 
The question is raised : 
“Is it possible to express numerically the relation between fluctuat- 
ions in waterlevel in the North-Sea and in the Baltic and fluctuat- 
ions in the trade-winds and waterraising-power of the wind on our 
coast 2” 
We have already pointed to the fact that for the solution of this 
question we had to consider the Equatorial current or trade-wind 
for an earlier period as that relative to the waterlevel. 
In our opinion the waterlevel of 1914 is governed by the Equa- 
torial current November 1913—October 1914. The correlationfactor 
between fluctuations in waterlevel and trade-wind is 0.66. 
76* 
