All-101 76 



terms in favor of the non-linear terms seems wholly unjustified. 

 The only conclusion (which may not be justified because of the 

 previous statement) resulting from this last investigation is 

 that the transports in the lower layer are of the same order of 

 magnitude as the out-of -phase transports of the upper layer. 



In view of the statements made at the end of Section 5, 

 the results listed for the one-layer problem are approximately 

 valid for the non-steady two-layer problem provided? 



(a) The thormocline adjusts itself to the mean wind dis- 

 tribution and remains fixed, 



(b) The mass transports of Problem 1 are interpreted as 

 the transports in the upper layer. 



The assumption of hydrostatic pressure is not necessary 

 for the solution of the mass transports in the steady problem. 



Wherever the results of this analysis permit a compari- 

 son with observation, good qualitative agreement is achiovedj 

 but the quantitative results are off by a factor of about three. 

 In view of the many Idealizing assumptions made, however, no more 

 than qualitative agreement could be hoped for, 



A number of features have been left out of the present 

 model. Changing topography, non-linear terms, vajriable eddy 

 viscosity and many other features could combine to change the 

 results noticeably. However, the analysis of the problem in- 

 cluding most of the features which were omitted in our model 

 would probably require a numerical treatment. 



