<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6 DCPP</article-title><alt-title>NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6 DCPP</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6 DCPP}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{I. Bethke et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Bethke</surname><given-names>Ingo</given-names></name>
          <email>ingo.bethke@uib.no</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6836-9838</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Yiguo</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9544-8382</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff1">
          <name><surname>Counillon</surname><given-names>François</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6412-3806</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Keenlyside</surname><given-names>Noel</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8708-6868</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Kimmritz</surname><given-names>Madlen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fransner</surname><given-names>Filippa</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8280-4018</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Samuelsen</surname><given-names>Annette</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9736-6484</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Langehaug</surname><given-names>Helene</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9010-5401</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Svendsen</surname><given-names>Lea</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0181-3332</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Chiu</surname><given-names>Ping-Gin</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff1">
          <name><surname>Passos</surname><given-names>Leilane</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Bentsen</surname><given-names>Mats</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5441-4063</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>Chuncheng</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6276-6499</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Gupta</surname><given-names>Alok</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Tjiputra</surname><given-names>Jerry</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4600-2453</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Kirkevåg</surname><given-names>Alf</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3691-554X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Olivié</surname><given-names>Dirk</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Seland</surname><given-names>Øyvind</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6804-5879</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Solsvik Vågane</surname><given-names>Julie</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Fan</surname><given-names>Yuanchao</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Eldevik</surname><given-names>Tor</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, Bjerknes Centre for
Climate Research, 5007 Bergen, Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center and Bjerknes Centre for
Climate Research, 5006 Bergen, Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven,
Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research,
5007 Bergen, Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Norwegian Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 43, Blindern, 0313 Oslo,
Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Center for the Environment, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Ingo Bethke (ingo.bethke@uib.no)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>19</day><month>November</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>11</issue>
      <fpage>7073</fpage><lpage>7116</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>25</day><month>March</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>12</day><month>May</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15</day><month>October</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>19</day><month>October</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e299">The Norwegian Climate Prediction Model version 1
(NorCPM1) is a new research tool for performing climate reanalyses and
seasonal-to-decadal climate predictions. It combines the Norwegian Earth
System Model version 1 (NorESM1) – which features interactive aerosol–cloud
schemes and an isopycnic-coordinate ocean component with
biogeochemistry – with anomaly assimilation of sea surface temperature (SST) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-profile
observations using the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF).</p>

      <p id="d1e314">We describe the Earth system component and the data assimilation (DA)
scheme, highlighting implementation of new forcings, bug fixes, retuning
and DA innovations. Notably, NorCPM1 uses two anomaly assimilation variants
to assess the impact of sea ice initialization and climatological reference
period: the first (i1) uses a 1980–2010 reference climatology for computing
anomalies and the DA only updates the physical ocean state; the second (i2)
uses a 1950–2010 reference climatology and additionally updates the sea ice
state via strongly coupled DA of ocean observations.</p>

      <p id="d1e317">We assess the baseline, reanalysis and prediction performance with output
contributed to the Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) as part of the
sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The NorESM1 simulations
exhibit a moderate historical global surface temperature evolution and
tropical climate variability characteristics that compare favourably with
observations. The climate biases of NorESM1 using CMIP6 external forcings
are comparable to, or slightly larger than those of, the original NorESM1
CMIP5 model, with positive biases in Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation (AMOC) strength and Arctic sea ice thickness, too-cold
subtropical oceans and northern continents, and a too-warm North Atlantic
and Southern Ocean. The biases in the assimilation experiments are mostly
unchanged, except for a reduced sea ice thickness bias in i2 caused by the
assimilation update of sea ice, generally confirming that the anomaly
assimilation synchronizes variability without changing the climatology. The
i1 and i2 reanalysis/hindcast products overall show comparable performance.
The benefits of DA-assisted initialization are seen globally in the first
year of the prediction over a range of variables, also in the atmosphere and
over land. External forcings are the primary source of multiyear skills,
while added benefit from initialization is demonstrated for the subpolar
North Atlantic (SPNA) and its extension to the Arctic, and also for
temperature over land if the forced signal is removed. Both products show
limited success in constraining and predicting unforced surface ocean
biogeochemistry variability. However, observational uncertainties and short
temporal coverage make biogeochemistry evaluation uncertain, and potential
predictability is found to be high. For physical climate prediction, i2
performs marginally better than i1 for a range of variables, especially in
the SPNA and in the vicinity of sea ice, with notably improved sea level
variability of the Southern Ocean. Despite similar skills, i1 and i2 feature
very different drift<?pagebreak page7074?> behaviours, mainly due to their use of different
climatologies in DA; i2 exhibits an anomalously strong AMOC that leads to
forecast drift with unrealistic warming in the SPNA, whereas i1 exhibits a
weaker AMOC that leads to unrealistic cooling. In polar regions, the
reduction in climatological ice thickness in i2 causes additional forecast
drift as the ice grows back. Posteriori lead-dependent drift correction
removes most hindcast differences; applications should therefore benefit
from combining the two products.</p>

      <p id="d1e320">The results confirm that the large-scale ocean circulation exerts strong
control on North Atlantic temperature variability, implying predictive
potential from better synchronization of circulation variability. Future
development will therefore focus on improving the representation of mean
state and variability of AMOC and its initialization, in addition to
upgrades of the atmospheric component. Other efforts will be directed to
refining the anomaly assimilation scheme – to better separate
internal and forced signals, to include land and atmosphere
initialization and new observational types – and improving biogeochemistry
prediction capability. Combined with other systems, NorCPM1 may already
contribute to skilful multiyear climate prediction that benefits society.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e332">Retrospective predictions have demonstrated potential of forecasting
seasonal-to-decadal climate variations. Particularly for the North Atlantic
(Keenlyside et al., 2008; Yeager and Robson, 2017) and partly also for the North
Pacific (Mochizuki et al., 2010), models show robust benefit from
initializing the internal climate variability in forecasting the upper ocean
state several years ahead. Prediction skill in the ocean gives rise to skill
in the atmosphere and over land by affecting the atmospheric circulation or
atmospheric transport of anomalous heat and moisture (Årthun et al.,
2018; Athanasiadis et al., 2020; Omrani et al., 2014; Sutton and Hodson,
2005). The level of internal climate variability, and thus potential benefit
from initialization, is especially high on the regional scale, where it has
numerous socioeconomic applications (Kushnir et al., 2019). Comparison of
initialized retrospective predictions with the observed climate evolution
not only provides forecast quality information but also informs climate
change attribution and Earth system model (ESM) evaluation. Initialized
retrospective predictions were part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project phase 5 (CMIP5; Taylor et al., 2012) that provided input to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
(Kirtman et al., 2013). They are also included in the latest CMIP6 (Eyring
et al., 2016), as part of the Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP; Boer
et al., 2016), feeding into the upcoming IPCC AR6 report.</p>
      <p id="d1e335">Current climate prediction systems are thought to not fully realize the
predictive potential on multiyear timescales, although the practical
limits of predictability themselves and their regional variations are poorly
known (Branstator et al., 2012; Sanchez-Gomez et al., 2016; Smith et al.,
2020). The skill of climate prediction depends on the initialization of
internal climate variability state, the representation of the dynamics and
processes that lead to predictability and the representation of the climate
responses to external forcings (Branstator and Teng, 2010; Latif and
Keenlyside, 2011; Bellucci et al., 2015; Yeager and Robson, 2017). Dynamical
climate prediction systems typically use ESMs (initially developed to
provide uninitialized long-term climate projections) for representing the
dynamics and the responses to external forcings (Meehl et al., 2009; Meehl
et al., 2014). Importantly, the dynamical prediction systems add
initialization capability to the ESMs, adopting a wide range of
initialization strategies (see Sect. 2.2.1) (Meehl et al., 2021). A better
understanding of the three aspects – initialization, model dynamics and forcing
responses – is fundamental for better exploiting the climate predictive
potential and improving estimates of climate predictability (Keenlyside and
Ba, 2010; Cassou et al., 2018; Verfaillie et al., 2021). The existing
climate prediction systems undersample effects of model and initialization
uncertainty and are not necessarily well suited to address questions related
to changes in the observing system. The benefits from using advanced data
assimilation for initialization, especially in an ocean density coordinate
framework, are not well explored.</p>
      <p id="d1e338">The Norwegian Climate Prediction Model version 1 (NorCPM1) is a new climate
prediction system with coupled initialization capability that features
innovations aiming to reduce initialization shock and forecast drift, and to
rigorously account for observational uncertainties. NorCPM1 contributes to
CMIP6 DCPP using two variants of an anomaly initialization method (see
Sect. 2.2 for details), enriching the CMIP6 DCPP repository in terms of
model and initialization diversity as well as simulation ensemble size.
Specifically, it provides output from CMIP standard experiments (including a
30-member ensemble of no-assimilation <italic>historical</italic> simulations), two sets of DCPP
coupled reanalysis simulations and two sets of initialized DCPP hindcast
simulations that obtain their initial conditions from the two reanalysis
sets. The output is suited for multi-model studies that address model and
initialization uncertainty in climate prediction or aim at combining
multiple models to achieve better predictions, and for benchmarking future
versions of NorCPM.</p>
      <p id="d1e344">The Norwegian Earth System Model version 1 (NorESM1; Bentsen et al., 2013;
Iversen et al., 2013), the backbone of NorCPM1, has previously contributed
to CMIP5 with climate projections and distinguished itself with realistic El
Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability (Lu et al., 2018) and a
modest historical global warming trend that favourably compares to
observations (Sects. 2.1.1 and S1 in the Supplement). It also includes a
physical–biogeochemical ocean component with a vertical<?pagebreak page7075?> density coordinate
and an atmosphere component with specialized aerosol–cloud schemes. While
not included in this version, current development efforts are directed towards
improving the regional climate representation in the sub-Arctic and Arctic
and exploring benefits for climate prediction from bias-reduction
techniques (Toniazzo and Koseki, 2018; Counillon et al., 2021), model
parameter estimation (Gharamti et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2021),
upgrades of model physics and resolution (Seland et al., 2020), improved
ocean biogeochemistry (Tjiputra et al., 2020) and coupling of multiple ESMs
(Shen et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e348">NorCPM1 further stands out in that it uses an ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF;
Evensen, 2003) based anomaly DA scheme that updates unobserved variables in
the ocean and sea ice components (currently, a DA update is not applied to
atmosphere and land) by utilizing the state-dependent covariance information
derived from the simulation ensemble, and it also has a rigorous treatment of
observation measurement and representation errors (see Appendix A for more
information on the choice of DA scheme). To date, few climate prediction
systems use assimilation schemes of similar complexity, and their
implementations differ significantly from the one used here (see Sect. 2.2.3
for details). NorCPM's DA capability is subject to continuous
development, and the system serves as a tool and testbed for new science
innovations in the field of DA. Reliable ensemble prediction requires an
accurate representation of uncertainty in the initial conditions and the
EnKF provides a mean to achieve this. The EnKF further allows assimilation
of raw observations of various types and controls the assimilation strength
depending on observational error, their spatial coverage and evolution of
the covariance with the state of the climate. In a Monte Carlo manner, it
propagates uncertainty from the previous assimilation, providing a complete
spatiotemporal uncertainty estimate. The method generates a spread in
hindcast initial conditions that reflects uncertainties in the initial
conditions, which typically evolve in time and space as the observational
network changes. This makes NorCPM1 a suitable tool for assessing the impact
of observation system changes on climate prediction. It also limits
artefacts due to over-assimilation of sparse and uncertain observations in
the early instrumental era. By utilizing initial conditions from a coupled
reanalysis that assimilates observational anomalies into the same ESM as
that used in the predictions, the system reduces initialization shock and ensures
consistency of initialization anomalies across variables and with the model
dynamics.</p>
      <p id="d1e351">NorCPM1 has been developed from a series of prototypes. In a perfect model
framework, Counillon et al. (2014) tested EnKF anomaly assimilation of
synthetic sea surface temperature (SST) observations into the low-resolution version of NorESM1 and
found the system to constrain well oceanic variability in the tropical
Pacific and subpolar North Atlantic. The system was successively upgraded to
the medium-resolution NorESM1-ME and other features such as the use of
real-world SST observations (Counillon et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019; Dai
et al., 2020), assimilation of temperature and salinity profiles (Wang et
al., 2017) and optional assimilation of sea ice concentration observations
with strongly coupled ocean–sea ice state update (Kimmritz et al., 2018,
2019). The version described in this paper includes further upgrades of the
external forcings to comply with CMIP6, code fixes, retuning of the physics,
activation of ocean biogeochemistry and modifications to the anomaly
assimilation scheme. These are detailed in Sect. 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e354">This paper sets out to technically describe NorCPM1 and its contribution to
CMIP6 DCPP and then assess the model's fitness of purpose through a broad
evaluation of its baseline climate, and climate reanalysis and prediction
performance. The paper intends to inform science studies that use the
model's CMIP6 DCPP output, to provide a synthesis of past model development
and to serve as a baseline for future development. While presenting a
comprehensive reference of NorCPM1, the paper is organized in a way that
makes it easy to navigate through for readers with focused interest.</p>
      <p id="d1e357">The following section describes the ESM component, assimilation scheme and
CMIP6 simulations performed with NorCPM1. Section 3 evaluates the reanalysis
and hindcast performance of NorCPM1. Section 4 further discusses the results
and related caveats. Section 5 summarizes and concludes the paper.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Prediction system and simulations</title>
      <p id="d1e368">This section describes the physical model, DA approach and simulations
produced for CMIP6. The prediction setup and simulations are summarized in a
schematic diagram in Fig. 1.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e373">Schematic of NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM)</title>
      <p id="d1e389">The Earth system model used in NorCPM1 builds on the medium-resolution
NorESM1-ME that includes a complete carbon cycle representation, which
allows the model to be run fully interactively with prescribed CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions. However, we use prescribed atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations in NorCPM. While previous NorCPM prototypes (e.g. Counillon
et al., 2014, 2016) used the original CMIP5 version, NorCPM1 uses a modified
version that has been subject to CMIP6 forcing updates, minor code changes
and retuning (see Sect. 2.1.3). In the following subsections, we will
summarize the main features of the original NorESM1-ME and then detail the
differences to the version used in NorCPM1.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>2.1.1</label><title>General description</title>
      <p id="d1e408">NorESM1-ME (Bentsen et al., 2013; Tjiputra et al., 2013) is based on the
Community Earth System Model (CESM1.0.4; Hurrell et al., 2013). Its
atmosphere component CAM4-OSLO replaces the original prescribed aerosol
formulation<?pagebreak page7076?> of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4; Neale et al., 2010)
with a prognostic aerosol life cycle formulation using emissions and new
aerosol–cloud interaction schemes (Kirkevåg et al., 2013). It also uses
a different ocean component – the Bergen Layered Ocean Model (BLOM, formerly
NorESM-O; Bentsen et al., 2013; Danabasoglu et al., 2014) – that originates
from the Miami Isopycnic Coordinate Ocean Model (MICOM; Bleck and Smith,
1990;
Bleck et al., 1992). The vertical density coordinate of the ocean
component minimizes spurious diapycnal mixing, improving conservation and
transformation of tracers and water masses. BLOM transports biogeochemical
tracers of the ocean carbon cycle component – the Hamburg Ocean Carbon Cycle
model (HAMOCC; Maier-Reimer et al., 2005) – which has been coupled to the
physical ocean model and optimized for the isopycnic-coordinate framework
(Assmann et al., 2010; Tjiputra et al., 2013). The Community Land Model
(CLM4; Lawrence et al., 2011) and the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model (CICE4; Bitz
et al., 2012), with five thickness categories and the
elastic–viscous–plastic rheology (Hunke and Dukowicz, 1997), are adopted
from CESM in their original form.</p>
      <p id="d1e411">The atmosphere and land components are configured on NCAR's finite-volume
2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid (f19), which has a regular <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude–longitude resolution. The atmospheric component
comprises 26 hybrid sigma–pressure levels extending to 3 hPa. The ocean and
sea ice components are configured on NCAR's gx1v6 horizontal grid, which is
a curvilinear grid with the northern pole singularity shifted over Greenland
and a nominal resolution of 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> that is enhanced meridionally
towards the Equator and both zonally and meridionally towards the poles. The
ocean component comprises a stack of 51 isopycnic layers, with a bulk mixed
layer representation on top consisting of two layers with time-evolving
thicknesses and densities.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>2.1.2</label><title>CMIP6 forcing implementation</title>
      <p id="d1e460">This section details the CMIP6 external forcing implementation into NorCPM1.
Special note is made where the model setup deviates from the CMIP6 protocol.
The updates of external forcing from CMIP5 to CMIP6 are expected to
moderately alter the model's climate mean state, variability and
anthropogenic trends. A detailed assessment of the impacts of the individual
forcing upgrades is beyond the scope of this overview paper and needs to be
addressed in separate studies.</p>
      <p id="d1e463">The update that most affects the anthropogenic climate trend in NorCPM1
compared to the original NorESM1-ME is likely the change in anthropogenic
emissions of aerosols and aerosol precursors (see Sect. 2.1.1 in
Kirkevåg et al., 2013, for details of NorESM1-ME's CMIP5 aerosol
implementation and emission datasets). We updated the emissions of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, fossil fuel and biomass burning of black carbon (BC) and organic
matter (OM) to the CMIP6 pre-industrial and historical forcing (Hoesly et al.,
2018). We used the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 2-4.5 scenario<?pagebreak page7077?> forcing, i.e. the “middle-of-the-road”
scenario of the SSP2 socioeconomic family, with an intermediate 4.5 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
radiative forcing level by 2100 (Gidden et al., 2019) for the
post-2014 period in accordance with the DCPP protocol (Boer et al., 2016). BC
emissions from aviation, omitted in the CMIP5 implementation, are now
included. The representations of natural aerosol emissions of biogenic OM
and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) production, dimethyl sulfide (DMS),
tropospheric background SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from volcanoes, mineral dust and sea salt
are kept unchanged.</p>
      <p id="d1e505">We updated prescribed atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (except
ozone) to Meinshausen et al. (2017) for the pre-industrial and historical
period and to SSP2-4.5 (Gidden et al., 2019) for the post-2014 period. We
applied globally uniform concentrations of the five equivalent greenhouse
gas species (CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, N<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O, CFC-11 and CFC-12). The forcing
data are at annual resolution and linearly interpolated between years by the
model. Due to a bug in the merging of historical and future scenario
forcing, values for 2015 and 2016 were erroneously set to 2014 values, while
from 2017 all values correctly follow the scenario forcing. This results in
a CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration error of less than 4 ppm, which has a negligible
impact on the radiative forcing evolution but may impact ocean–atmosphere
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux prediction.</p>
      <p id="d1e553">We updated prescribed atmospheric ozone concentrations to Hegglin et al. (2016)
(see also Checa-Garcia et al., 2018) for the pre-industrial,
historical and post-2014 periods. After most simulations had been completed,
we discovered that the date in our historical and post-2014 ozone input
files was erroneously shifted by 23 months (e.g. the January 2000
observation is applied in February 1998). As a result, the model anticipates
anthropogenic ozone changes approximately 2 years too early. The 1-month
shift in the seasonal cycle may have dynamical implications particularly for
the stratosphere if compared against the pre-industrial simulation that does
not contain the shift.</p>
      <p id="d1e557">We updated the solar forcing to the CMIP6 product (Matthes et al., 2017) as
well as the stratospheric volcanic forcing (Revell et al., 2017; Thomason et
al., 2018). In NorESM1-ME used in CMIP5, stratospheric volcanic aerosol
loadings were prescribed, and the model then computed the resulting
radiative forcing assuming certain aerosol properties and particle growth.
In CMIP6, pre-computed optical parameters are provided instead and
prescribed directly to the radiation code of the models in order to reduce
inter-model spread in responses. NorCPM1 prescribes a zonally uniform
space–time-varying extinction coefficient, single scattering albedo and
hemispheric asymmetry factor for 14 solar (i.e. shortwave covering
infrared, visible and ultraviolet) and 16 terrestrial (i.e. thermal
longwave) wavelength bands. Despite significant changes between volcanic
forcing implementations, we found only minor differences when comparing the
radiative forcing to the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo  eruption, with the CMIP6
implementation producing a less distinct peak and a wider tail compared to
the CMIP5 implementation (not shown). Additionally, the CMIP6 experimental
protocol now requires the use of a stratospheric volcanic background forcing
(monthly climatology computed from historical 1850–2000 volcanic forcing)
during pre-industrial and future eras, whereas the use of such background forcing
was optional in CMIP5 and not implemented in the original NorESM1-ME.</p>
      <p id="d1e560">We updated the land surface types and transient land use to be consistent
with the Land-Use Harmonization version 2 (LUH2) dataset (Lawrence et al.,
2016). For the post-2014 period, NorCPM1 deviates from the DCPP protocol as
it uses land-use data from SSP3-7.0 scenario (which were the only
LUH2-version land-use scenario data for CLM4 available to us at that time)
instead of the recommended SSP2-4.5. For CMIP6 DCPP, the main interest is in
the historical period (1850–2014). From the future scenario, only the period
prior to 2030 is of interest for DCPP decadal outlooks, during which time the
differences between the SSP scenarios are still small. We expect this
deviation to have a minimal impact on the outcomes of NorCPM1's near-future
climate outlooks (note that the greenhouse gas concentrations still follow
the SSP2-4.5 scenario). Data users who specifically investigate near-future
land-use-related climate feedbacks are, however, advised to either exclude
NorCPM1 from their analysis or take the land-use differences between
SSP2-4.5 and SSP3-7.0 into consideration. A supporting simulation experiment
revealed that the update to LUH2 caused an unrealistic land–cryosphere
cooling trend over the historical period in NorCPM1 (Fig. S3, S4 and text in
Sect. S1 in the Supplement). The cause and ramifications are subject to further
investigation.</p>
      <p id="d1e563">Other forcings not mentioned above (e.g. nitrogen deposition) are kept the
same as in the CMIP5 model setup.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>2.1.3</label><title>Code changes, retuning and equilibration</title>
      <p id="d1e574">This section describes code changes unrelated to forcing upgrades and
retuning of NorCPM1 relative to NorESM1-ME that was necessary due to forcing
and code changes.</p>
      <p id="d1e577">An error in the aerosol code that caused an overestimation of the BC load
was identified in NorESM1-ME and a correction has been proposed (details in
Graff et al., 2019). The correction of this error is applied in NorCPM1 and
causes a slight cooling of the climate with a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C difference
in the Arctic (Fig. S4).</p>
      <p id="d1e596">NorESM1-ME featured too-thick sea ice on the shelf seas of the eastern
Eurasian Arctic due to spurious variability in ocean velocities enhancing
ice formation in the region (Seland and Debernard, 2014; Graff et al.,
2019). Increasing the built-in velocity damping applied to shallow ocean
regions in MICOM reduces the regional thickness bias in NorCPM1.</p>
      <p id="d1e599">NorESM1-ME's ocean biogeochemistry output has been subject to substantial
grid noise. The noise was traced back to a local tracer mass correction that
was applied because surface freshwater fluxes do not change the ocean<?pagebreak page7078?> column
mass in the model. For instance, a positive surface freshwater flux into the
ocean – assuming tracer concentrations of this flux to be zero – will reduce
the ocean tracer concentrations. Without a compensating increase in column
water mass, such a reduction in concentrations inevitably leads to a
reduction (i.e. non-conservation) in column-integrated tracer mass. The
correction in NorESM1-ME locally scales the tracer concentrations such that
the column-integrated tracer mass is conserved for each grid cell. This
correction scheme has the weakness that it produces considerable spatial
noise at the surface and artificial temporal variability and trends in the
deep ocean. These problems are mitigated in NorCPM1 by replacing the local
scaling with a global scaling (i.e. the same correction scale factor is
used for all grid cells) that enforces global instead of local tracer
conservation.</p>
      <p id="d1e603">Using the original parameter settings of NorESM1-ME, the surface climate of
the physical component of NorCPM1 drifts towards an unrealistic cold state
with exacerbated biases as a consequence of introducing stratospheric
background volcanic forcing, changing the land surface boundary conditions
and correcting the bug in the aerosol code. To avoid a deterioration of
climate performance and to re-equilibrate the climate, we therefore retuned
NorCPM1 relative to NorESM1-ME. Specifically, we increased the condensation
threshold for low clouds (from 90.05 % to 90.08 %) and also decreased
the snow albedo over sea ice by adjusting parameters that affect snow
metamorphosis (from r_snw <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, dt_mlt_in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5, rsnw_mlt_in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1500
to r_snw<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>-2, dt_mlt_in<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.0, rsnw_mlt_in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2000).</p>
      <p id="d1e649">After the retuning, NorCPM1 neither shows obvious climate improvements nor
global-scale deterioration compared to NorESM1-ME, though some regional
differences exist (see Sect. S1). Since the model characteristics did not
substantially change, we performed only a short pre-industrial spin-up of
250 years for NorCPM1 – using the year-1000 state of NorESM1-ME's spin-up
(corresponding to the year-100 state of its CMIP5 pre-industrial control
simulation) as initial conditions – in order to allow the upper ocean, sea
ice and land surface to equilibrate to the model code and forcing changes.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Data assimilation (DA)</title>
      <p id="d1e662">The decadal hindcasts are initialized from two coupled reanalyses of NorCPM1
in which monthly anomalies of SST and of
hydrographic profiles are assimilated into NorESM using anomaly EnKF DA over
the period 1950–2018. The same ESM is used for generating the reanalysis
and performing the decadal hindcasts, limiting adjustments that occur after
the model system is initialized. The following subsections will present the
assimilated data, the DA method, its general implementation and the
treatment of ocean biogeochemistry during assimilation. A rationale behind
the choice of the DA method is presented in Appendix A.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>2.2.1</label><title>Assimilated data</title>
      <p id="d1e673">For the period 1950–2010, SST data are taken from the Hadley Centre Sea Ice
and Sea Surface Temperature dataset (HadISST2.1.0.0; John Kennedy, personal
communication, 2015; and Nick Rayner, personal communication, 2015) that has also been
utilized in the construction of the coupled reanalysis CERA-20C (Laloyaux et
al., 2018). HadISST2 provides 10 realizations of monthly gridded SST over
1850–2010 with a 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution. The spread between the
realizations, which depends on time and space, is designed to reflect
uncertainties in gridding and combining SST in situ observations, retrievals
from AATSR (Advanced Along-Track Scanning Radiometer) reprocessing and AVHRR
(Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) retrievals. We consider the
average and variance of these 10 realizations as the observations and their
error the variance. We use monthly SST data from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Optimum Interpolation SST version 2
(OISSTV2; Reynolds et al., 2002) for the period 2011–2018, when HadISST2
data are not available. OISSTV2 provides weekly SST and weekly observation
error variance, in addition to monthly SST. The observation error variance
of the monthly data is estimated as the harmonic mean of weekly error
variances provided by OISSTV2. We have confirmed through a separate
reanalysis and set of hindcasts overlapping between 2006 and 2010 that the
transition from HadISST2 to OISSTV2 does not cause discontinuities nor a
significant change of prediction skill (not shown). SST data in the regions
covered by sea ice are not assimilated; these regions are identified using
the sea ice mask in HadISST2 or OISSTV2.</p>
      <p id="d1e685">Subsurface ocean temperature and salinity hydrographic profile observations
are taken from the EN4 dataset (EN4.2.1; Good et al., 2013). The EN4 dataset
consists of profile data from all types of ocean profiling instruments,
including those from the World Ocean Database, the Arctic Synoptic Basin Wide
Oceanography project, the Global Temperature and Salinity Profile Program
and Argo. The EN4 profile data are available from 1900 to the present,
including data quality information and bias corrections (Gouretski and
Reseghetti, 2010). Data that lie within the mixed layer of NorCPM's first
ensemble member are not assimilated in order to maximize the impact of SST
assimilation in the mixed layer. The uncertainty of observed hydrographic
profiles is not available, and we have used the estimate provided by Levitus
et al. (1994a, b) and Stammer et al. (2002).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>2.2.2</label><title>DA method</title>
      <p id="d1e696">The EnKF (Evensen, 2003) is an advanced, ensemble-based and recursive DA
method. One advantage of the EnKF is its probabilistic nature that provides
model uncertainty quantification through Monte Carlo ensembles (Fig. 1; red
box). Moreover, the EnKF provides multivariate and<?pagebreak page7079?> flow-dependent updates,
meaning that information is propagated from the observed variables to the
unobserved variables dependent on the evolving state of the climate system;
this is crucial to capture shifts in regimes (Counillon et al., 2016). To
work efficiently, the EnKF needs an ensemble size sufficiently large to span
the model subspace dimension (Natvik and Evensen, 2003; Sakov and Oke, 2008).
Localization reduces the spatial domain of influence of observation which
drastically reduces  the need for a large ensemble size. With the recent
improvements of high-performance computing, the use of the EnKF for
seasonal-to-decadal climate prediction has emerged (Zhang et al., 2007; Karspeck et
al., 2013; Counillon et al., 2014; Brune et al., 2015; Sandery et al.,
2020). Because NorCPM1 performs monthly assimilation updates, the numerical
cost for performing the updates is small compared to the cost of integrating
the model.</p>
      <p id="d1e699">NorCPM1 uses a deterministic variant of the EnKF (DEnKF; Sakov and Oke,
2008). The DEnKF updates the ensemble perturbations around the updated
ensemble mean using an expansion of the expected correction to the forecast.
This yields an approximate but deterministic form of the traditional
stochastic EnKF that outperforms the latter, particularly for small
ensembles (Sakov and Oke, 2008).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>2.2.3</label><title>DA implementation</title>
      <p id="d1e710">In order to generate the coupled reanalysis, we assimilate in the middle of
the month all observations available during that month and update the
instantaneous model state. Assimilation of monthly SST data implies that the
innovation (i.e. observations minus model state) compares variability of an
instantaneous model snapshot with that of monthly averaged observations. An
alternative has been investigated, where data have been assimilated at the
end of the month comparing the monthly averaged model output with the SST
data. However, the latter approach shows poorer performance for reanalysis
and no improvements during prediction (Billeau et al., 2016). This suggests
that comparing model snapshots with monthly data is not a critical
approximation for our system.</p>
      <p id="d1e713">We perform anomaly assimilation in which the climatology of the observations
is replaced by the model climatology. Considering the impact of the choice
of the climatology reference period on the performance of reanalysis,
NorCPM1 contributes two coupled reanalysis products to CMIP6 DCPP, labelled
<italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> (see Fig. 1; Sect. 2.3 for experiment
overview). In <italic>assim-i1</italic>, the climatology
is defined over the reference period (1980–2010) when assimilating EN4.2.1
hydrographic profile data and HadISST2 data, but over the period 1982–2010
when assimilating OISSTV2 data (i.e. beyond 2010) because OISSTV2 was not
available before 1982. The model climatology is calculated from the ensemble
mean of NorCPM1's 30-member no-assimilation historical experiment (Sect. 2.3).
The observed climatology for assimilating hydrographic profile data is
computed from EN4 objective analysis (Good et al., 2013). In <italic>assim-i2</italic>, the
climatology reference period is 1950–2010. For the hydrographic profile and
HadISST2 data, the climatology is computed for the longer reference period.
However, the climatology for the OISSTV2 data (i.e. after 2010) is
calculated from concatenated data of HadISST2 for 1950–1981 (when OISSTV2 is
not available) and OISSTV2 for 1982–2010.</p>
      <p id="d1e728">Together with changing the climatology reference period, we test two
versions of the DA system. Time and resource constraints prevented us from
testing these two aspects separately. In <italic>assim-i1</italic>, we only update the ocean state
based on oceanic observations. In this case, the system belongs to the
category of weakly coupled DA system (WCDA; Penny and Hamill, 2017), where the
update in the ocean component of the system only influences the other
components during model integration. In <italic>assim-i2</italic>, we allow the oceanic observations
to update the ocean and the sea ice components. In this case, the system is a
strongly coupled DA system (SCDA), where the oceanic observations influence
the sea ice component of the system both at the DA step and during the model
integration. To avoid confusion with atmosphere–ocean SCDA (e.g. Penny et
al., 2019), we will refer to the <italic>assim-i2</italic> approach as OSI-SCDA (where OSI stands for
“ocean–sea ice”). The OSI-SCDA approach assures a more consistent initialization
across components and exploits the longer temporal coverage of oceanic
observations relative to sea ice observations (see also Appendix A). To
update the sea ice state, we follow Kimmritz et al. (2018), where an optimal
way to update the sea ice state was identified: the EnKF updates the sea ice
concentrations of the individual thickness categories, while the other sea
ice state variables (volume per thickness category, top surface temperature,
snow and energy of melting) are post-processed to ensure physical
consistency and maximize the benefit of the updates in the sea ice
concentrations. In particular, the volume of the individual sea ice category
is scaled proportionally to the updated individual concentration so that the
prior individual category thickness is preserved. This approach ensures that
the individual thickness values remain in their prescribed range but still
allow a large reduction of total ice thickness error (Kimmritz et al.,
2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e740">The DA scheme updates all ocean physical state variables. In an
isopycnal-coordinate ocean model, the layer thickness (a time-varying ocean state
variable) is by definition always strictly positive. Due to normality
assumptions, the linear analysis update of the EnKF may return unphysical
(negative) values. To solve this issue, we use the aggregation method
proposed by Wang et al. (2016), in which we iteratively aggregate layers in
the vertical until no unphysical value is returned by the EnKF. This scheme
does not significantly increase the computational cost of DA but avoids the
drift in heat content, salt content and mass that would otherwise be caused.</p>
      <?pagebreak page7080?><p id="d1e744">The reanalysis system uses 30 ensemble members. The ensemble size is
relatively small compared to the dimension of the system. In order to limit
spurious correlation caused by sampling error, we use localization
(Houtekamer and Mitchell, 1998). We use the local analysis framework
(Evensen, 2003) in which DA is performed for each horizontal grid cell and
that uses only observations around the targeted grid cell to limit spurious
correlation as ocean covariance decays with distance. This also reduces the
dimension of the problem. In order to avoid discontinuity in the increment
at the edge of the local domain, we use the reciprocal of the Gaspari and
Cohn function (a function of the distance between observation location and
the target model grid; Gaspari and Cohn, 1999) to taper observation error
variance (i.e. to reduce the influence of observations). We taper
innovation and ensemble perturbations with the square root of the Gaspari
and Cohn function, which is equivalent to the tapering of observation error
variance. The localization radius used in NorCPM1 is a bimodal Gaussian
function of latitude with a local minimum of 1500 km at the Equator where
covariances become anisotropic, a maximum of 2300 km in the midlatitudes
and another minimum in the high latitudes where the Rossby radius is small
(Wang et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e747">Observation errors are assumed to be uncorrelated. For the SST product, this
assumption clearly fails because the SST data are the result of an analysis.
We have therefore decided to only assimilate the nearest SST data. For the
observed hydrographic profile, the independence of observation errors is
more plausible. The observation error for the profile is considered to be
the sum of the instrumental error (defined as in Levitus et al., 1994a,
b, and Stammer et al., 2002) and the representativity error accounting
for the model unresolved processes and scales. As detailed in Wang et al. (2017),
the representativity error is estimated offline from the innovation
and the ensemble spread of the 30-member historical experiment, to ensure
that the reliability of the ensemble is preserved (i.e. the truth and the
ensemble members can be considered to be drawn from the same underlying
probability distribution function). The profile observation error is
inflated by a factor of 3 in sea-ice-covered regions where the
observation climatology critical for anomaly assimilation is highly
uncertain because of the lack of observations. When there are several
observations falling within the same grid cell, these observations are
“superobed”: all observations falling within the same grid cell are
averaged and the instrumental error variance is reduced as the harmonic sum
of the individual instrumental error variances (Sakov et al., 2012). Note
that the representativity error term mainly relates to the capability of the
model to represent the truth and is thus not reduced by the superobed
technique.</p>
      <p id="d1e750">As further detailed in Sect. 2.3, the initial ensemble used at the start
of the reanalyses (year 1950) is branched from a 30-member historical
experiment. The historical experiment was initialized in 1850 from the end
of a pre-industrial spin-up simulation (Sect. 2.1.3), with initial ensemble
spread being generated by adding small random noise O(10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K) to the
ocean temperatures and then integrated for 100 years, allowing the spread to
grow. This approach ensures that the initial ensemble spans sufficient
spread in the interior of the ocean needed for a well-calibrated EnKF and
that each member is synchronized with respect to the timing of the external
forcing. To avoid an abrupt start of the assimilation, the observation error
variance is inflated by a factor of 8 during the first assimilation
update; every two assimilation updates, the factor is decreased by one until
it reaches 1, as suggested by Sakov et al. (2012). The ensemble spread is
sustained during the reanalysis using the following inflation techniques.
The DEnKF (Sect. 2.2.2) limits the need for inflation to some extent. We
use the moderation technique of Sakov et al. (2012) – while the ensemble
mean is updated with the observation error variance, the ensemble spread is
updated with the observation error variance by a factor of 4. We also use
pre-screening of the observation; i.e. the observation error variance is
inflated so that the analysis remains within 2 standard deviations of the
forecast error from the ensemble mean of the forecasts.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS4">
  <label>2.2.4</label><title>Treatment of ocean biogeochemistry</title>
      <p id="d1e774">Fransner et al. (2020) showed with perfect model predictions using
NorESM1-ME that the initial state of the biogeochemical tracers has a
negligible impact on the predictability of ocean biogeochemistry beyond lead
year 1. During the assimilation process, the thickness of the isopycnal
layers changes, while the tracer concentrations on the layers remain
unchanged, meaning that we allow assimilation to change the mass at every
location. However, this does not introduce a drift as long as the analysis
is unbiased (i.e. the assimilation does not systematically pull the model
climate in one direction). This was verified with a 10-year long
twin experiment where SST from a pre-industrial control run was assimilated
every month into a run with 30 members. The total change in the
biogeochemical tracer mass over this period was negligible; the largest
drift was found for silicate that corresponded to 0.5 % of its global
mass. With this approach, the global near-surface primary production
approached that of the control run, showing that there is a good potential
for constraining biogeochemical variability by assimilating SST only in our
model setup. This might be improved by the additional assimilation of sea
ice and temperature and salinity profiles. Other studies have shown that
assimilation of ocean physics improves the representation of ocean
biogeochemistry (e.g. Séférian et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>CMIP6 simulations</title>
      <p id="d1e786">Figure 1 provides a schematic overview of NorCPM1's simulations prepared for
CMIP6, including their temporal coverage and initialization relations. We
will base our model<?pagebreak page7081?> verification and evaluations on these simulations. They
can be summarized in four groups.</p>
      <p id="d1e789">The Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) baseline
experiments comprise a coupled control experiment with fixed pre-industrial
forcings (<italic>piControl</italic>), an idealized 1 % per year CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> increase experiment
(<italic>1pctCO2</italic>), an abrupt 4 times CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> experiment (<italic>abrupt4XCO2</italic>) and a forced atmosphere
experiment with prescribed observed evolution of SST and sea ice (<italic>amip</italic>).
NorCPM1's <italic>piControl</italic> features three realizations to better allow time-evolving
assessment of model drift. The second and third realizations start from the
same initial conditions as the first realization (taken from the end of a
long spin-up) but with small random noise O(10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K) added to the
atmospheric temperature field. <italic>amip</italic> features 10 realizations (matching the
ensemble size of the decadal hindcasts) with slightly perturbed atmospheric
initial states. <italic>1pctCO2</italic> and <italic>abrupt4XCO2</italic> feature one realization each.</p>
      <p id="d1e847">The <italic>historical</italic> experiment features 30 realizations that are used for initializing
NorCPM1's assimilation experiments, for constructing the climate anomalies
of the assimilation experiments and also serve as a benchmark for the
initialized hindcasts. The simulations are initialized from the same restart
from <italic>piControl</italic>, with ensemble spread generated by adding small perturbations to the
mixed layer temperatures (details in Sect. 2.2.3). In that way, we avoid
contaminating influence of model drift on the ensemble spread that would
occur if the restart conditions of <italic>piControl</italic> were sampled. <italic>historical-ext</italic> extends the
historical simulations from 2015 to 2029 using SSP2-4.5 scenario forcing
(Sect. 2.1.2) to cover the time period of the hindcast and future outlook
experiments. Hereafter, <italic>historical</italic> refers to the combined <italic>historical</italic> and <italic>historical-ext</italic> experiment.</p>
      <p id="d1e872">The DCPP simulations comprise two sets of assimilation simulations
(<italic>dcppA-assim</italic>), hereafter referred to as <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic>, with 30 ensemble members per set. The
simulations are initialized from 1 January 1950 states of <italic>historical</italic> and
integrated until 15 January 2019.</p>
      <p id="d1e888">The DCPP simulations further comprise two sets of decadal hindcast
simulations (<italic>dcppA-hindcast</italic>), hereafter referred to as
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic>, that each feature 10
ensemble members per start date, with one start date per year from 1960 to
2018. The 15 October  states of the first 10 members of <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> are used to
initialize corresponding members of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic>. However, we will in the following
refer to 1 November as the initialization day because the assimilation
update on 15 October uses observations from the entire month of October. The
hindcast simulations are integrated for a total of 123 months to cover 10
complete calendar years.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Verification and evaluation</title>
      <p id="d1e922">In this section, we evaluate NorCPM1's reanalysis performance (Sect. 3.1)
and hindcast performance (Sect. 3.2) based on the CMIP6 output. We measure
skill and skill differences with anomaly correlation coefficients (ACCs) and
anomaly correlation coefficient differences (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs) (for details and
discussion of the skill metrics, see Appendix B and Sect. 4). An additional
evaluation of the ESM, focusing on its climatology and variability
characteristics, is presented in Sect. S1.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Reanalysis performance</title>
      <p id="d1e939">We evaluate the performance of the <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> reanalyses that span the period
1950–2018 and provide the initial conditions for the decadal hindcast
experiments <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic>. The following subsections cover global assimilation
statistics, the impact of assimilation on the model mean states and
synchronization of variability for the different components of the climate
system.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>Global assimilation statistics</title>
      <p id="d1e961">We use the innovation to monitor the performance of assimilation over time
(Sakov et al., 2012; Counillon et al., 2016), which is defined as the
ensemble mean of the model forecast state (at assimilation time on the
observational grid) minus the observation. In combination with the ensemble
spread and the observation error standard deviation, it can be used to
assess the reliability of the ensemble system (Sakov et al., 2012). Ideally,
the reliability is checked for each grid cell. Under an ergodicity
assumption, we define global statistics based on innovation as follows:

                  <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M29" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>3</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>4</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>5</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>6</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the area of the model grid cell <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> where the gridded
observation   is located, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the area weight, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
innovation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ensemble spread (standard deviation) of
forecasts, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of observation
error at the grid cell <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at a given time. The observations are binned onto
the model grid and into 42 depth bins that are also used to bin the model
data. In a perfectly reliable system, the RMSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> matches
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e. the forecast ensemble spread combined with the
observational error. Figure 2 shows the time evolution of the innovation
statistics for SST, ocean<?pagebreak page7082?> temperature and salinity in <italic>assim-i1</italic> (the evolution in
<italic>assim-i2</italic> is similar to that in <italic>assim-i1</italic> and therefore not shown).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1303">Global assimilation statistics (see Sect. 3.1.1 for
definitions). Bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> (dashed red lines), ensemble spread
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>; blue lines), observation error (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>; green lines), RMSE (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>; solid red lines) and the total
error (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>; pink lines) for SST <bold>(a)</bold>, ocean temperature <bold>(b)</bold>
and ocean salinity <bold>(c)</bold>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1384">For SST (Fig. 2a), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is stable with an accuracy of approximately 0.5 K.
The bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is stable as well, fluctuating around zero. This is
expected as we use anomaly assimilation (with the bias estimated from the
<italic>historical</italic> experiment that does not use assimilation). It also indicates that the
assimilation with a monthly cycle largely eliminates the conditional bias,
caused by model error in the sensitivity to the forcing and thus corrects
the forced long-term trends. The ensemble spread <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is also relatively stable. There is a drop in
observation error standard deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">o</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> in 1982 with the
emergence of satellite measurements and in 2011 with the transition from
HadISST2 to OISSTV2 (see Sect. 2.2.2). The reliability of the system is
good until 1982 (compare blue and magenta curves), but then <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> drops slightly below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> indicating that the introduction of
satellite data overly reduces the observational error estimates applied
during assimilation. When the observation error reduces, the model accuracy
does not increase accordingly, most likely because the model fails to
represent features seen in the observations. Adding a representativity error
during the satellite era to improve the reliability should be explored in
future development.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
For ocean temperature (Fig. 2b), the RMSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases over time from
1.5 to 1.2 K. The bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is positive prior to 1970 but near zero
afterwards. The distribution of the observations prior to 1970 is
considerably uneven with a predominance in the North Atlantic region and the
bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> does not reflect the globally averaged bias. The total error
standard deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is smaller than the RMSE, suggesting
that the ensemble system overestimates its accuracy (i.e. the ensemble
spread is too small). For ocean salinity (Fig. 2c), the RMSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is
stable prior to 2000 and after 2005. The decrease in the RMSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> in
the period 2000–2005 is due to the introduction of Argo floats. There is a
negative bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> in salinity prior to 2000. The bias
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> remains negative but is relatively small after 2000. As for ocean
temperature, there is a mismatch between the RMSE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and
total error standard deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> indicating that the
system is overconfident.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>3.1.2</label><title>Effect of assimilation on mean state</title>
      <p id="d1e1583">Anomaly assimilation should by design have a negligible effect on the
climate mean state. Non-linear propagation of the assimilation updates
between the assimilation updates can, however, yield a post-assimilation
change in the mean state in regions where there are no observations.
Furthermore, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> are not using the same reference period (1980–2010 versus
1950–2010) and thus differences in the mean state can occur as because of
different sampling of internal multidecadal climate variability in the
observations and due to errors in the model's forced climate trend.
Additionally, in the computation of observational profile anomalies, we
subtracted the climatology of the objective EN4 analysis, which is
inaccurate in regions with sparse data coverage. This can further impact
mean states of the reanalyses.</p>
      <p id="d1e1592">We verify the effect of DA on the climatology by comparing mean state biases
of our two assimilation products with those of the <italic>historical</italic> experiment (Fig. 3). The
mean state changes due to assimilation in upper ocean temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300) and
salinity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300) averaged over the top 300 m, sea surface height (SSH) and
surface air temperature (SAT) are generally an order of magnitude smaller
than the absolute biases of <italic>historical</italic>. The relative impact of DA on the biases is
thus mostly below 10 % of its absolute magnitude. An exception is the
Arctic, where the <italic>assim-i2</italic> assimilation increases the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 bias and decreases the
SAT bias. This is consistent with that the <italic>assim-i2</italic> assimilation tends to remove sea
ice mass, leading to higher SAT because of the thinner ice and higher
surface salinity because the model tries to grow back sea ice, ejecting salt
during that process. Despite assimilating climate anomalies, the sea ice
update in <italic>assim-i2</italic> largely reduces the climatological sea ice thicknesses towards
more realistic values, whereas the climatology of <italic>assim-i1</italic> remains unchanged
(Fig. 4). In a similar NorCPM version with climatologically too-thick Arctic sea
ice, Kimmritz et al. (2019) found anomaly assimilation of observed sea ice
concentration (updating the area in different thickness categories of<?pagebreak page7083?> the
model using OSI-SCDA) to yield large reductions in total ice thickness
error. Here, we show that similar bias reduction is achieved by a strongly
coupled update of the sea ice states using ocean observations. The exact
reason for this behaviour is subject to further investigation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1637">Annual-mean climatological biases for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 <bold>(a–c)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 <bold>(d–f)</bold>,
SSH <bold>(g–i)</bold> and SAT <bold>(j–l)</bold>. Biases of <italic>historical</italic> (top row), differences between
absolute biases in <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>historical</italic> (middle row), differences between absolute biases
in <italic>assim-i2</italic> and <italic>assim-i1</italic> (bottom row). Cold colours imply bias improvement. The EN4.2.1
objective analysis (Good et al., 2013) is used to estimate the biases of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 over 1950–2018. The global 3-D thermohaline field reprocessed dataset (ARMOR-3D L4; Larnicol et al., 2006) is used to estimate the biases of SSH over
1993–2018. The Hadley Centre – Climate Research Unit Temperature
dataset version 4  (HadCRUT4)  (Morice et al., 2012) is used to estimate the biases of SAT over 1950–2018.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1706">November–March climatological biases of sea ice thickness (SIT) in
<italic>historical</italic> <bold>(a)</bold>, <italic>assim-i1</italic> <bold>(b)</bold> and
<italic>assim-i2</italic> <bold>(c)</bold>. The observational reference combines C2SMOS (Ricker et
al., 2017), Cryosat2 (Hendricks et al., 2018a) and Envisat (Hendricks et
al., 2018b) over the period 2002–2018.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1734">The effect the assimilation has on the mean state of nutrients was assessed
by investigating the difference between the ensemble means of <italic>historical</italic> and
<italic>assim-i1</italic> (Fig. 5a–c, e–g). From previous studies (While et al., 2010; Park et al.,
2018), we know that the equatorial regions are the most susceptible to errors
originating from assimilation of physical variables. However, since sea ice,
an efficient blocker of sunlight, is updated by weakly coupled DA, some
differences in the polar region are also expected. There is indeed an
increase in primary production in the polar regions in the respective
summers of each hemisphere. On average, there is an increase in nutrients in
the Arctic, indicating that part of the increase in productivity is caused
by an increase in mixing as the ocean is exposed to the atmosphere. There
are very small differences in the mean nutrients in the Southern Ocean.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1745">Difference between the three nutrients – nitrate <bold>(a, e)</bold>,
silicate <bold>(b, f)</bold> and phosphate <bold>(c, g)</bold> – as well as oxygen <bold>(d, h)</bold> between <italic>assim-i1</italic> and
<italic>historical</italic>. Positive values means that the assimilation run has increased values. The left
column shows the difference at 100 m depth and the right column shows
the difference at a section along the Equator. The plots are based on the
mean from the period 1950–2018.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1773">Some impact of DA on the mean state of <italic>assim-i1</italic> is also seen in the surface waters
of the tropical oceans; these changes do not have a pronounced seasonal
variation. The largest changes to the surface nitrate and phosphate occurred
in the eastern Pacific, while for silicate there was also an increase in the
concentration in the Bay of Bengal. The increase in silicate in the Bay of
Bengal occurs throughout the water column; there is also a similar increase
in the water column of the western Tropical Pacific. For nitrate and
phosphate, the increase in concentration is confined to the upper 500–1000 m.
At the surface and down to about 1000 m, all three nutrients have
increased concentrations along the Equator. Below 1000 m, in the eastern
equatorial Pacific nitrate has increased concentration, while silicate and
phosphate have decreased concentrations compared to <italic>historical</italic>. An increase in nitrate
with a simultaneous decrease in silicate indicates that there is some
movement in the water masses that leads to decreased silicate and phosphate
and at the same time an increase in oxygen in <italic>assim-i1</italic> (Fig. 5d, h); this reduces the
denitrification that occurs below the thermocline in the tropical Pacific.
Furthermore, we compared the magnitude of the computed ensemble mean
differences between <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>historical</italic> along the Equator with the variability of the
<italic>historical</italic> ensemble. The changes are always within 1 standard deviation of the
ensemble variability – i.e. small relative to the internal
variability – except for oxygen in a small region at around 2000 m in the
equatorial Atlantic where there is a large increase in oxygen. We therefore
conclude that the changes to nutrients in <italic>assim-i1</italic> are caused by changes to
circulation and temperature and not by unphysical mixing caused by the
assimilation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>3.1.3</label><title>Physical ocean variability</title>
      <p id="d1e1806">We first evaluate the synchronization of physical ocean variability globally
at grid scale interpolated to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 6 shows
ACCs for annual SST, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 and SSH for <italic>assim-i1</italic> along with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs
for <italic>assim-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> and <italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1</italic>.
The ACCs for <italic>assim-i1</italic> are high and statistically significant across
variables in most regions. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i1</italic> – <italic>historical </italic>show that the
assimilation of ocean data significantly improves the synchronization of
SST, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 with observations in most regions. Significant
improvements for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 are in the Pacific and North Atlantic. The
improvements for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 are similarly high and largest in the Arctic, albeit
showing localized degradation in some coastal regions. For SSH, ACCs are
increased in the subpolar North Atlantic (SPNA), tropical Pacific and Indian
oceans, but decreased in the South Atlantic due to the fact that the
long-term trend is degraded by the weakly coupled DA in the <italic>assim-i1</italic> system (not
shown). Missing contributions from land ice in the model  possibly play a
role in the degradation. The small <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1</italic> suggest that the choice
of the climatology reference period does not play an important role for the
overall performance of the reanalysis in terms of variability. Significant
differences appear close to the sea-ice-covered areas and are thus likely
related to the sea ice state updated via OSI-SCDA in <italic>assim-i2</italic>. However, we have
limited confidence in the EN4 objective analysis that we used for validation
in ice-covered regions where subsurface observations are sparse.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1927">ACC for annual SST <bold>(a)</bold>, 0–300 m temperature <bold>(b)</bold>,
0–300 m salinity <bold>(c)</bold> and sea surface height <bold>(d)</bold> for
<italic>assim-i1</italic>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC for <italic>assim-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(e–h)</bold>,
<italic>assim-i2</italic> – <italic>assim-i1</italic> <bold>(i–l)</bold>. Temporal coverage is 1950–2018 for SST (ERSSTv5; Huang et al.,
2017) and temperature and salinity (EN4.2.1; Good et al., 2013)
observations, and 1993–2018 for sea surface height (ARMOR-3D; Larnicol et
al., 2006). Hatched areas are not locally significant; dotted areas are
field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1978">We evaluate the effect of assimilation on large-scale climate indices of
leading modes of variability (Fig. 7). The North Atlantic subpolar gyre
(SPG) circulation exerts strong control on subpolar North Atlantic (SPNA)
temperature variations (e.g. Häkkinen and Rhines, 2004), affects the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) by regulating the
poleward transport of Atlantic water (Hátún et al., 2005) and has a
wide range of marine environmental impacts (e.g. Hátún et al.,
2016). The SPG circulation index is here defined as the anomalous SSH
averaged over the SPNA box (48–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 60–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W)
(Lohmann et al., 2009). A positive (negative) SPG index reflects a weak
(strong) barotropic mass transport in the SPNA region that usually coincides
with a warm (cold) SPNA. We note that more elaborated index definitions
based on principle component analysis of SSH and subsurface density are
likely to capture circulation features and associated water mass variability
better than our simple index (Koul et al., 2020). Figure 7a shows
the SPG index over 1950–2018 in <italic>historical</italic>, <italic>assim-i1</italic>, <italic>assim-i2</italic> and observations (altimetry data
available from 1993). The observed SPG index exhibits an abrupt shift from a
strong to a weak circulation around 1995, that has been linked to direct
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) influence (Häkkinen and Rhines, 2004;
Yeager and Robson, 2017) and NAO-related preconditioning of the ocean
circulation state (e.g. Lohmann et al., 2009; Robson et al., 2012). The
ensemble mean of the <italic>historical</italic> ensemble does not show the shift, but a slow long-term
increase likely related to anthropogenic global sea level rise. The min–max
range of the <italic>historical</italic> ensemble nevertheless bounds the observed SPG index,
suggesting that the model range of variability is not inconsistent with the
observed trajectory. The ensemble means of <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> show pronounced strong and
weak SPG index phases and match well the observed SPG index changes during
1993–2018. Their simulated weak phase during 1950–1970 and strong phase
during 1980–1997 are also in good agreement with<?pagebreak page7085?> other model studies (e.g.
Msadek et al., 2014). The ensemble ranges of <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> are much smaller than
that of <italic>historical</italic>, indicating the ensemble members are well synchronized by the
assimilation. Despite showing similar decadal-scale variability, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and
<italic>assim-i2</italic> have different means and long-term trends. The stronger SPG circulation of
<italic>assim-i2</italic> goes in tandem with a stronger AMOC, and it is likely that these two are
related (Eden and Willebrand, 2001; Eden and Jung, 2001; Böning et al.,
2006).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2043">Anomaly time series for selected large-scale indices.
<bold>(a)</bold> Annual-mean subpolar gyre (48–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 60–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) SSH
with ARMOR-3D L4 observations (Larnicol et al., 2006). <bold>(b)</bold> Annual-mean AMOC
strength at 26.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N with RAPID observations (Johns et al., 2011).
<bold>(c)</bold> Monthly Niño 3.4 index with HadISST observations (Rayner et al.,
2003). <bold>(d)</bold> Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index
computed as the 10-year running mean of detrended SST
averaged over the North Atlantic (0–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 0–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W),
with HadISST observations. <bold>(e)</bold> Global-mean SST with HadISST
observations (Rayner et al., 2003). <bold>(f)</bold> Global-mean SAT with HadCRUT4
observations (Morice et al., 2012). In all panels, the 1950–2018
climatology of <italic>historical</italic> is removed from <italic>historical</italic>,
<italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic>. Observations in panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> are
shifted to align their time mean with <italic>assim-i1</italic>. Observations in panels <bold>(c)</bold>, <bold>(d)</bold>, <bold>(e)</bold> and
<bold>(f)</bold> are relative to 1950–2018 climatology.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?pagebreak page7086?><p id="d1e2151">The strength of AMOC is measured continuously from April 2004 at 26.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N
by a joint US–UK Rapid Climate Change – Meridional
Overturning Circulation and Heat flux Array (RAPID-MOCHA; Johns et al.,
2011). Accordingly, we define the AMOC index as the yearly anomalies of
overturning transport maximum at 26.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N. Figure 7b shows the
AMOC indices of <italic>historical</italic>, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic>
and observations. The ensemble mean of <italic>historical</italic>, a measure
for the simulated anthropogenic trend, rises before the mid-70s and then
slowly declines. In contrast, the two assimilation products show a weakening
before the mid-70s, followed by a strengthening that is consistent with a
dominantly positive observed NAO during that period (Robson et al., 2012;
Yeager and Robson, 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). The simulated AMOC strongly
declines after 2005, though not as rapidly as in the observations, and
flattens after 2010. Similar results have been shown in previous studies
(e.g. Keenlyside et al., 2008; Karspeck et al., 2017). As for SPG
circulation, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> show similar multiyear AMOC variations but different
long-term trends. Most notably, <italic>assim-i1</italic> stays below the ensemble mean of
<italic>historical</italic> over the entire period, while <italic>assim-i2</italic> surpasses <italic>historical</italic> around 1990, which is more
consistent with the anomalously strong AMOC during the mid-90s SPG shift.
Results from a supporting experiment suggest that the stronger circulation
in <italic>assim-i2</italic> is primarily caused by the different climatological period but also
partly by the OSI-SCDA update of sea ice (Fig. S8 and related text in
Sect. S2).</p>
      <p id="d1e2207">The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) – or Atlantic Multidecadal
Variability – refers to large-scale, low-frequency SST variations in the
North Atlantic, with linkages to AMOC variability (Keenlyside et al., 2015;
Yeager and Robson, 2017). Following Enfield et al. (2001), we define the
AMO index as the 10-year running mean of linearly detrended SSTs averaged
over the entire North Atlantic  (0–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 0–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W).
Figure 7c shows the index in observations, <italic>historical</italic>, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic>. In agreement with
observations, the indices of all three experiments are in a warm phase
during 1950–1965 and 1995–2018 and a cold phase during 1965–1995. However,
the <italic>historical</italic> ensemble mean (representing the forced response of the model)
underestimates the amplitude, exhibits a longer cold phase as well as an
upward trend after 2010, when observations show a downward trend. As a
result of assimilating SST observations, the AMO indices of <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> both
follow the observed index with only minor departures. <italic>assim-i2</italic> shows a slightly
weaker post-2000 downward trend than <italic>assim-i1</italic> and observations, either related to
differing sea ice behaviour or differences in AMOC.</p>
      <p id="d1e2253">While ocean dynamics in the Atlantic basin give rise to multiyear climate
predictability, ENSO variability is an important source for seasonal and
interannual predictability. The ESM features realistic ENSO characteristics
(Figs. S5, S6 and text in Sect. S1). But how well do monthly DA updates
synchronize the model's ENSO variability with the<?pagebreak page7087?> observed one? Figure 7d
shows the monthly Niño 3.4 – computed as the average of SST in the
region 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 120–170<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W – for
<italic>historical</italic>, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> and HadISST.
Both <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> accurately reproduce the observed index,
showing a perfect match of the large 1998 event but slightly underestimate
other peaks. We attribute the good performance to DA in NorCPM1
constraining well thermocline depth (equivalent to warm water volume) in the
equatorial Pacific that is critical to develop ENSO events (Meinen and
McPhaden, 2000; Wang et al., 2019). The Niño 3.4 indices of <italic>assim-i1</italic> and
<italic>assim-i2 </italic>are almost identical, meaning that the climatology reference period defined
in anomaly assimilation and the jointly updated sea ice state have little
impact on the equatorial Pacific. The ensemble mean of <italic>historical</italic> has a smaller
amplitude and is only marginally correlated with the observed index
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.2, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.085, alpha <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1), suggesting a potential small contribution
from external forcing.</p>
      <p id="d1e2340">Last, we consider the effect of assimilation on the global-mean SST
representation. Figure 7e shows the anomalies of global-mean SST evolution
for <italic>historical</italic>, <italic>assim-i1</italic>, <italic>assim-i2</italic> and HadISST.
<italic>historical</italic> captures the long-term warming trend and some
shorter volcanic cooling events (e.g. after the 1963 Mt. Agung and 1991 Mt.
Pinatubo eruptions). <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> additionally capture the high-frequency
variability on top of the forced signal. The assimilation experiments show
minor discrepancies with respect to observations, such as a too-weak post-eruption Mt.
Pinatubo recovery and a seemingly underestimated 1998 El Niño imprint on
global-mean SST. <italic>assim-i2</italic> exhibits a slightly more positive trend after 2010
compared to <italic>assim-i1</italic>, which likely is the imprint of the more positive trend in AMO
on global-mean SST. The behaviour of global-mean SAT (Fig. 7d) is similar to
that of SST and will be further addressed in Sect. 3.1.6.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS4">
  <label>3.1.4</label><title>Ocean biogeochemistry variability</title>
      <p id="d1e2377">The correlation skills of annual-mean primary production (PP), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and air–sea CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes for the assimilation experiments are shown in
Fig. 8. For PP, the total skill (with contribution from external forcing)
is high and field significant in the tropical Pacific and Indian oceans,
with some skill in the subtropical oceans. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs between
<italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>historical</italic>, measuring assimilation benefit, are not field significant and smaller
in value than the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic>,<?pagebreak page7088?> indicating that most skill comes from the
external forcing. Still, large regions in the tropical Pacific and Indian
oceans feature high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs that are locally significant. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs between <italic>assim-i2</italic> and <italic>assim-i1</italic> are generally small. The largest differences are found
in the polar regions, although precaution should be taken when evaluating
the PP in these regions due to the low coverage of satellite data.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2444">ACC for annual primary production <bold>(a)</bold>, CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux <bold>(b)</bold> and
surface <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(c)</bold> for <italic>assim-i1</italic>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC for
<italic>assim-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(d–f)</bold>, <italic>assim-i2</italic> – <italic>assim-i1</italic> <bold>(g–i)</bold>.
Temporal coverage is 1998–2018 for observed primary production (GlobColour;
Garnesson et al., 2019) and 1982–2017 for CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux and surface
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (SOCCOM; Landschützer et al., 2019). The linear trend has been
removed from the data. Hatched areas are not locally significant; dotted
areas are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2542">For the CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (linearly detrended), the total skill
is high and field significant over the tropical and subtropical oceans.
Exceptions are eastern part of the tropical Pacific, and the southern
subtropical Pacific for the CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes. For CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes, there is
also high skill in the southern part of the Southern Ocean and in the
Nordic Seas. This is not the case for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, which suggests that part of
the CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux skill might be related to successful synchronization of
sea ice variability. As for PP, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs relative to <italic>historical </italic>are
considerably smaller than the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic>, despite the linear detrending that
was applied to the CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fields before the ACC computation. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs remain field significant in parts of the subtropical and tropical
oceans, although with a reduced westward extension of the skilful areas.
Contrary to expectation, the SPNA shows little skill. As for PP, skill
differences for CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are small between <italic>assim-i1</italic> and
<italic>assim-i2</italic>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS5">
  <label>3.1.5</label><title>Sea ice variability</title>
      <p id="d1e2684">We evaluate the success of our assimilation in phasing sea ice variability.
We use ACC maps of annual-mean sea ice concentration and HadISST (Rayner et
al., 2003) data from 1950–2018 as a benchmark (Fig. 9).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2689">ACC for annual sea ice concentration in Arctic <bold>(a)</bold>
and Antarctic <bold>(b)</bold> for <italic>assim-i1</italic>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC for
<italic>assim-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(c–d)</bold>,
<italic>assim-i2</italic> – <italic>assim-i1</italic> <bold>(e–f)</bold>. Observations are from
HadISST (Rayner et al., 2003) over the period 1950–2018. The data are
interpolated to a regular <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid. Hatched
areas are not locally significant; dotted areas are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f09.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2753">Over the Arctic, <italic>assim-i1</italic> features overall high skill. While much of this skill is
from the externally forced trend, positive <italic>assim-i1 – historical</italic> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs show that ocean DA
considerably improves the agreement in the marginal ice zones. Positive
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1 </italic>show that updating the sea ice state via OSI-SCDA of ocean
observations further improves the agreement, including over the central
Arctic.</p>
      <p id="d1e2780">Over the Antarctic, <italic>assim-i1</italic> shows modest to high skill and only isolated negative
ACCs. Strikingly, the <italic>assim-i1 – historical</italic> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs are as high or higher than the absolute
ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic>. This means that assimilation corrects for the negative trend in
the historical ensemble. OSI-SCDA again improves the skill (Fig. 9f),
especially close to the coast where the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic> are low or negative (Fig. 9b).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS6">
  <label>3.1.6</label><title>Atmosphere variability</title>
      <p id="d1e2810">Because our DA is weakly coupled with respect to the atmosphere, we expect a
partial synchronization of atmospheric variability from the combined
influence of the ocean surface–sea ice states and the external forcings. The
reanalysis performance provides a hypothetical upper bound for the
achievable atmospheric–land prediction skill with our system, assuming
close-to-perfect prediction of ocean variability and skilful prediction of sea ice
variability. We assess the synchronization of atmospheric variability with
ACCs of annual-mean SAT, precipitation over land (PR), sea level pressure
(SLP) and 500 hPa geopotential height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>500) for <italic>assim-i1</italic> (Fig. 10a–d). We also
consider <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i1 – historical</italic> and <italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1</italic>
to isolate skill contribution from DA and
skill differences between two reanalysis products.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2838">ACC for annual 2 m temperature (SAT, <bold>a</bold>), precipitation (PR, <bold>b</bold>),
sea level pressure (SLP, <bold>c</bold>) and 500 hPa geopotential height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>500, <bold>d</bold>) for
<italic>assim-i1</italic>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC for <italic>assim-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic>
<bold>(e–h)</bold>, <italic>assim-i2</italic> – <italic>assim-i1</italic> <bold>(i–l)</bold>. Temporal coverage is 1950–2018
for observed SAT (HadCRUT4; Morice et al., 2012), PR (CRU TS4.03; Harris et
al., 2020), SLP (NCEP reanalysis; Kalnay et al., 1996) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>500 (extended
ERA5; Harris et al., 2020). Hatched areas are not locally significant;
dotted areas are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f10.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2903">For SAT, the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic> are high over both ocean and land. Most of the DA
benefit is located over the oceans, as revealed by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for
<italic>assim-i1 – historical</italic>, with benefits over land mainly found in the tropical regions and also over
northwest North America, i.e. regions that are strongly affected by ENSO
variability. <italic>assim-i2</italic> does not show any significant skill improvement over
<italic>assim-i1</italic>, despite the sizable improvements in sea ice variability when updating the
sea ice state via OSI-SCDA. This is likely because the improvements in sea
ice extent (Fig. 9) occur mostly during summer when they have little impact
on surface temperatures (Deser et al., 2010). For global-scale SAT
synchronization, the global warming hiatus at the beginning of the 21st
century, which has been attributed to both internal variability and external
forcing (e.g. Medhaug et al., 2017), makes an interesting test case. Figure 7f
shows that global-mean SAT anomaly of <italic>assim-i1 </italic>reproduces well the flat post-2000
trend of the observations, while <italic>assim-i2</italic> and <italic>historical</italic> continue to warm, consistent with
their AMO and AMOC evolution. The better match of <italic>assim-i1</italic> with
observed global-mean SAT does not necessarily imply that <italic>assim-i1</italic> is more correct than <italic>assim-i2</italic>. It is
possible that <italic>assim-i1</italic> makes up for a missing post-2000 cooling signal over the
continents by an unrealistic low reduction of winter sea ice thickness
during that period, something that warrants further investigation.</p>
      <p id="d1e2949">For PR over land, the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic> are overall positive. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for
<italic>assim-i1 – historical</italic> show similar strength and pattern, indicating a limited contribution to the
ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic> from the anthropogenically driven spin-up of the hydrological
cycle. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1</italic> do not suggest statistically significant
performance differences between the two products.</p>
      <p id="d1e2979">For SLP, the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic> are most positive over the low and high latitudes and
less positive over the midlatitudes, with slightly negative values over the
Southern Ocean and Eurasia. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i1 – historical</italic> suggest that a large
portion of the positive skill can be attributed to DA, including benefits
over the North Pacific that stretch over North America and also over the
SPNA, consistent with ENSO influence. However, DA seems to cause degradation
over the subtropical North Atlantic, central Europe, Siberia and East Asia.
The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1</italic> reveal that updating sea ice improves SLP performance
over the Arctic. DA also seems to partly mitigate the skill deficit over
central Europe while degrading skill further east.</p>
      <p id="d1e3005">For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>500, the correlation skill of <italic>assim-i1</italic> is virtually saturated over the tropics,
decreases towards the midlatitudes and again slightly increases towards the
poles. While modest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for <italic>assim-i1 – historical </italic>indicate that external<?pagebreak page7089?> forcing
contributes significantly to high tropical skill, DA leads to consistent
skill enhancement in those regions. One should note that a change in
correlation from 0.6 to 0.9 equates to more than doubling in explained
variance from 36 % to 81 % (estimated by the square of the
correlation). Hence, the benefit from DA is more substantial than the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs alone would suggest. Significant skill enhancement is also
present over the mid-to-high latitudes, presumably related to ENSO influence
on the extratropical atmospheric circulation. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for
<italic>assim-i2 – assim-i1</italic> indicate weak improvement over the polar regions, albeit not statistically
significant, and no signs of degradation, as a consequence of updating the sea
ice during DA.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Hindcast performance</title>
      <p id="d1e3055">This section evaluates retrospective predictions with NorCPM1 that are
initialized on 1 November (i.e. no observations after 31 October are
utilized in the initialization) of the years 1960–2018. We demonstrate
skill benefits from forecast initialization as well as from using a dynamic
prediction system. To assess skill degradation with forecast lead time, we
consider the different time-averaged forecast ranges lead year 1 (LY1), lead
years 2–5 (LY2–5) and lead years 6–9 (LY6–9). We compare these against the
skill of NorCPM1's reanalyses, uninitialized prediction (constructed from
<italic>historical</italic>) and persistence forecast (defined in Appendix B). We also highlight
performance differences between the two hindcast products <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic>. The following subsections present skill evaluations for the physical
ocean, marine biogeochemistry, sea ice and atmosphere.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Physical ocean variability – globally</title>
      <p id="d1e3074">SST prediction has the most direct application for near-term climate impact
assessment. We evaluate NorCPM1's capability to predict
interannual-to-multiyear SST variations with ACC skill maps for <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> along with skill
difference maps for <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>assim-i1</italic>, <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>persistence</italic>,
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> (Fig. 11). For LY1, <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> exhibits generally
positive ACCs, exceeding 0.8 over extended areas, that are both locally and
field significant except for limited regions in the eastern Pacific and at
high latitudes (Fig. 11a). The system loses information of the initial
condition over time, resulting in notably smaller ACCs compared to the
<italic>assim-i1</italic> reanalysis (Fig. 11b). Significant benefits from initialization, as
diagnosed from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic>, are concentrated in the Pacific and
Atlantic sectors of the<?pagebreak page7090?> tropics and Southern Ocean, and also in the subpolar
North Atlantic (SPNA) and extending from there into the Eurasian Arctic
(Fig. 11d). Consistent with other prediction systems (e.g. Yeager et al.,
2018), the SPNA stands out as the region that benefits most from
initialization. However, <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> does not outperform <italic>persistence</italic> in the SPNA (Fig. 11c),
indicating that the benefit of initialization primarily offsets poor
performance of the uninitialized dynamical prediction of <italic>historical</italic> in that region.
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> shows improved skill over <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> in sea-ice-covered regions and in a small part of
the SPNA (Fig. 11e). These skill differences are not field significant, but
the fact that the two systems differ in their sea ice treatment adds
confidence that skill improvements in the polar regions are real. Much of
the LY1 skill, in particular in the tropics, is likely related to skilful
initialization of ENSO in NorCPM (Fig. S9 and text in Sect. S2), which has
been studied in detail using a similar model configuration (Wang et al.,
2019).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e3143">Prediction skill for SST. ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(a)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>analysis-i1</italic> <bold>(b)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>persistence</italic> <bold>(c)</bold>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(d)</bold> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(e)</bold>
for LY1.
The middle and right columns show the same but for LY2–5 <bold>(f–j)</bold>
and LY6–9 <bold>(k–o)</bold>. Observations
use ERSSTv5 (Huang et al., 2017) with coverage for 1960–2018. Hatched areas are
not locally significant; dotted areas are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3231">The LY2–5 and LY6–9 multiyear SST skill patterns (Fig. 11, middle and
right columns) resemble that of LY1 but with some notable differences.
Large regions in the eastern central North Atlantic, tropical Indian Ocean
and western Pacific show elevated skills that exceed 0.9. The same regions
show, however, negligible gains relative to uninitialized prediction of
<italic>historical</italic> (Fig. 11i, n). Thus, the skill increase relative to LY1 is likely due to the
forced trend having more weight, as the 4-year averaging effectively filters
out interannual internal variability, and less due to the presence of more
predictable internal climate variability on multiyear timescales or
forecast shock that more strongly impacts LY1. Despite limited
initialization benefit, the initialized predictions globally outperform
persistence except for in the Southern Ocean. Since we expect the
persistence forecast to capture a linear trend, this may indicate a
significant skill contribution from non-linearities in the forced trend.
Also for multiyear prediction, the SPNA and its extension towards the Arctic
stand out as the region benefiting most from<?pagebreak page7091?> initialization, although the
benefit is somewhat reduced and less statistically robust than for LY1 (Fig. 11d).
Over time, the impact of initializations in the SPNA diminishes and
the system drifts back to the poorly performing simulated forced trend,
causing skill deficit to emerge (Fig. 11f, k). This result stands in contrast
to multi-model findings (that include NorCPM1) suggesting a positive
contribution of the forced signal to SPNA temperature skill over a
comparable period (Borchert et al., 2021). We suspect a problem with CMIP6
land use change specification (Fig. 13c and text in Sect. S1), leading to
an unrealistic historical cooling trend over North America in NorCPM1. Via
downstream effects, the continental cooling (likely an artefact) may
contribute to the SPNA cooling trend shown after 1980, exacerbating the
discrepancy between the observed and simulated SPNA temperature evolution.
The eastern Pacific presents another region where the skill notably
deteriorates over time. The historical simulations perform better here than
for the SPNA (Fig. 11i, n), suggesting a detrimental effect of initialization
on multiyear scales on Pacific SSTs notwithstanding the positive effect on
LY1 prediction. Also for multiyear prediction, <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> performs better than
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> in the high-latitude regions, notably in the northwestern North Atlantic
(Fig. 11j, o). However, the multiyear skill <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> and
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> differences are both not field significant, and we thus cannot exclude
that they are a sampling artefact.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e3259">AMOC strength at 26<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, Atlantic meridional ocean heat
transport at 48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 0–2000 m temperature averaged over the
SPNA box (48–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 60–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) for i1 <bold>(a–c)</bold> and i2
<bold>(d–f)</bold>. Solid lines show ensemble means of <italic>historical</italic> (blue),
<italic>assim</italic> (red) and <italic>hindcast</italic> (purple)
experiments, with the 1950–2010 average of <italic>historical</italic> subtracted. Shading denotes
ensemble minima and maxima.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f12.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e3325">Drift-corrected 0–2000 m temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>2000) and SST averaged
over the SPNA box (48–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 60–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) for i1 <bold>(a, b)</bold>
and i2 <bold>(c, d)</bold>, respectively. Solid lines show ensemble means of <italic>historical</italic> (blue), <italic>assim</italic> (red) and
<italic>hindcast</italic> (purple) experiments, with the 1950–2010 average of <italic>historical</italic> subtracted. Shading
denotes ensemble minima and maxima. Also shown are ACCs as function of lead
time for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>2000 and SST for i1 <bold>(e, f)</bold> and i2 <bold>(g, h)</bold>, respectively. The
persistence forecasts use the average over the last year (solid) and last 10
years (stippled) from the observations.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f13.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3392">Skill patterns for the upper ocean temperature and salinity averaged over
the top 300 m (Figs. S10, S11) and for sea surface height (Fig. S12) – a
proxy for circulation and vertically integrated behaviour – largely reflect
those for SST. Skill enhancement due to multiyear averaging is less apparent
than for the surface state, presumably due to less presence of interannual
climatic noise below the surface. Initialization benefit in the SPNA extends
below the surface, across variables, and stands out as a robust feature.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page7092?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Physical ocean variability – SPNA</title>
      <p id="d1e3403">Initialization of the large-scale ocean circulation and the associated
meridional heat transport have been identified as essential for skilful
prediction of SPNA climate (e.g. Yeager and Robson, 2017). We evaluate in
more detail how well NorCPM1 represents mechanisms that give rise to North
Atlantic decadal predictability. This evaluation provides additional
forecast quality information and a better understanding of the
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> skill differences and of how well the predictive potential for North
Atlantic SSTs is realized in the system.</p>
      <p id="d1e3412">The forced evolution of the AMOC strength shows a slight increase until 1980
and weakening thereafter (Fig. 12a, blue solid). <italic>assim-i1</italic> initializes the
circulation in an anomalous weak state prior to 1990, close to neutral
between 1990 and 2010, and weak again thereafter (solid red), with the
initial perturbations tending to be outside the internal variability range
(blue shading). After initialization, the circulation (solid purple) rapidly
relaxes towards the unperturbed ensemble-mean state evolution of <italic>historical</italic>
(solid blue). Because ocean heat exchange between the subtropical and the SPNA
covaries with the variability in AMOC strength (Fig. S13e–g), the anomalies
of the northward heat<?pagebreak page7093?> transport at the time initialization (Fig. 12b, red
solid) roughly resemble those of the circulation, mostly showing anomalously
negative transports, except during the 1990s. The heat transport relaxes
towards the ensemble-mean of <italic>historical </italic>during the hindcasts. <italic>assim-i2</italic> shows generally stronger
circulation and heat transports with weaker long-term decline than
<italic>assim-i1</italic> (Fig. 12d, e). These circulation and heat transport differences are key to
explaining strikingly different SPNA temperature evolution in <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> versus
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> (Fig. 12c, f). <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic>
notably drift away from the observed SPNA-averaged
temperature trajectory, suggesting that both configurations struggle to
predict the observed decadal SPNA temperature trends. However, while
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> exhibits drift behaviour towards cooling (most pronounced during 1960–1980
and after 2005), <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> exhibits drift behaviour towards warming (most severe
during 1980–2000).</p>
      <p id="d1e3449">Diagnosing the hindcast SPNA temperature evolution from the anomalous ocean
heat transport across 48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (Fig. S13a, c) or the regression of
heat transport on AMOC (Fig. S13b, d) results in a very similar behaviour.
The SPNA 0–2000 m heat content changes are well balanced by transport
changes across 48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and anomalous surface fluxes over the SPNA
region (not shown). The latter mainly act to dampen the temperature signal,
explaining the greater amplitude of the diagnosed temperature evolution.
The resemblance of diagnosed and simulated hindcast evolution suggests that
circulation exerts a strong control on the simulated SPNA temperature
evolution and that poor SPNA prediction is largely a consequence of poor
initialization of AMOC and associated poleward heat transport. Errors in the
simulated externally forced AMOC trend and associated heat transport likely
affect the skill as well.</p>
      <?pagebreak page7094?><p id="d1e3470">How can <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> exhibit very different SPNA 0–2000 m temperature evolution
but similar correlation skills? Applying lead-dependent drift correction
largely removes the differences (Fig. 13a, c). Remaining differences hint at
a slight time dependence, consistent with the somewhat different long-term
trends in AMOC strength in <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> (Fig. 12a vs. d). In terms of ACC skill,
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> performs marginally better than <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> for long lead times but does not
outperform persistence (Fig. 13e, g). The results for SPNA SST (Fig. 13b, d)
generally resemble those for 0–2000 m temperature but look slightly more
promising, with <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> performing marginally better than persistence for long lead
times (Fig. 13f, h).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>3.2.3</label><title>Ocean biogeochemistry variability</title>
      <p id="d1e3503">We evaluated the performance of ocean biogeochemistry for PP and surface
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux. Figure 14 shows maps of PP prediction skill for LY1, LY2–5
and LY6–9. While the results are patchy, some coherent patterns can be
distinguished. For the total LY1 skill of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> (Fig. 14a), ACCs are relatively
high and the field is significant over large parts of the tropical Pacific and
tropical Indian oceans. The correlations stay relatively high for longer
lead times (Fig. 14f, k), although their significance is reduced. When
subtracting the skill of <italic>historical</italic> (Fig. 14d, i, n), the correlation is greatly
reduced, showing that much of the total skill comes from external forcing.
The only region with a coherent pattern of locally significant correlation
differences is in the tropical Pacific (0–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 120–150<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W),
which shows positive skill differences until LY2–5. For
LY6–9, the correlation differences become statistically not significant,
although the values stay relatively high. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>assim-i1</italic> (Fig. 14b, g, l)<?pagebreak page7095?> are negative over the tropical Indo-Pacific and large
parts of the South Pacific and Southern Ocean, indicating information from
initialization is lost over time, while they are positive over the tropical
Atlantic, parts of the Atlantic subpolar gyre and most parts of the
extratropical Indo-Pacific. Paradoxically, the analysis used to initialize
the hindcasts does not consistently outperform the hindcasts. Improvement of
the initialized dynamic predictions over <italic>persistence</italic> can be seen for LY2–5 and LY6–9,
but not for LY1. Thus, temporal non-linearities in the externally forced
climate trend are likely to contribute to skill, as <italic>persistence</italic> should capture any
linear trends due to forcings and most of the skill comes from the external
forcing. Differences between the two sets of hindcasts lack statistical
robustness (Fig. 14e, j, o).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e3561">Prediction skill for PP. ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(a)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>analysis-i1</italic> <bold>(b)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>persistence</italic> <bold>(c)</bold>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(d)</bold> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(e)</bold>
for LY1. The middle and right columns show the same but for LY2–5 <bold>(f–j)</bold> and
LY6–9 <bold>(k–o)</bold>. Observations use GlobColour (Garnesson et al., 2019) with
coverage for 1998–2018. Hatched areas are not locally significant; dotted areas
are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f14.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3649">Using satellite chlorophyll measurements for model evaluation is subject to
caveats. For example, temporal data coverage is relatively short and the
spatial data coverage at high latitudes is poor due to cloudiness. Following
Yeager et al. (2018), we therefore also analysed the model's ability to
hindcast its own analysis over the period 1960–2018 (Fig. 15). We will
refer to this as the potential predictability<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, using the asterisk to
indicate that it differs from more conventional potential predictability
estimates based on self-prediction that typically utilize a pre-industrial
control simulation (e.g. Collins et al., 2006). The results become less
patchy, and the total skill stays field significant for large parts of the
global ocean until LY6–9. Removing the skill of <italic>historical</italic> again reveals that there
are regions where the skill is improved by initialization, notably the
subtropical gyres and the Nordic Seas (Fig. 15d, i, n). Note that subtracting
negative <italic>historical</italic> ACCs leads to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs higher than the absolute ACCs of
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> itself. Therefore, a large skill benefit from initialization does not
necessarily translate into a societally useful absolute skill. We analysed
time series of region-averaged PP between 1970–2018 in regions of high
skill, namely the subtropical gyres of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian
oceans, as well as the Nordic Seas (not shown). The Nordic Seas are the only
region with a strong positive correlation between <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>historical</italic> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.5 and 0.6 for
single year and four-year means, respectively), indicating that there is a
large contribution of the external forcing to the predictive skill. There,
the correlation between the <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i1</italic> is close to 0.75 for all lead year ranges,
indicating an improvement with respect to <italic>historical</italic>, with the largest difference for
LY1. For the other regions, there is considerable agreement between the
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and the <italic>assim-i1</italic> for LY1, with correlations exceeding 0.7. For the subtropical
gyres in the Pacific and South Atlantic, the agreement between the hindcasts
and the analysis extends to LY2–5, while the skill in the Indian and North
Atlantic oceans drops beyond LY1.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e3715">Potential predictability<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for PP. ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(a)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>analysis-i1</italic> <bold>(b)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>persistence</italic> <bold>(c)</bold> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(d)</bold>
for LY1. The middle and right columns show the same but for
LY2–5 <bold>(e–h)</bold> and LY6–9 <bold>(i–l)</bold>. Synthetic observations constructed from the
ensemble mean of the first 10 members of <italic>assim-i1</italic> with coverage for 1960–2018. Hatched
areas are not locally significant; dotted areas are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f15.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3799">Despite the ambiguous results, the predictability of PP of a couple of years
in the tropical/subtropical Pacific is in agreement with the results from
perfect model experiments (Fransner et al., 2020) and Séférian et
al. (2014), who found a predictability of 2–5 years when comparing with
satellite-based PP in the same region. Also, Krumhardt et al. (2020) found a
potential predictability of PP of a couple of years in tropical/subtropical
regions when comparing to a reconstruction based on an ocean simulation
forced with an atmospheric reanalysis. However, to remove the effect of
external forcing, they performed a linear detrending. This partly removes the
effect of climate change but not of other episodic external forcing such as
volcanic eruptions. Frölicher et al. (2020) found a perfect model
predictability of more than 10 years in some parts of the subtropical gyres
in their perfect model study.</p>
      <p id="d1e3802">Studies have yet to report predictability of PP in high latitudes if
compared to observational data. In these regions, the use of satellite
observations is not reliable because of the lower data coverage and more
variable chlorophyll-to-carbon ratio of phytoplankton (Frigstad et al., 2014).
However, several recent perfect and potential predictability studies suggest
that predictability of primary production in high latitudes is low or even
non-existent on interannual-to-decadal timescales (Fransner et al., 2020;
Frölicher et al., 2020; Krumhardt et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e3805">For CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes (linearly detrended), a high total skill is found for
all lead years but with initialization benefit limited to LY1 in the
tropical Pacific, indicating that most skill stems from external forcing
(Fig. S14 and text in Sect. S2). The modest benefit from initialization
agrees with the findings of Lovenduski et al. (2019), who compared hindcasts of the CESM Decadal Prediction Large Ensemble (DPLE; Yeager et al., 2018) with the same observational dataset.
However, other model systems (Li et al., 2016; Ilyina et al., 2020) and
perfect model studies (Séférian et al., 2018; Fransner et al., 2020) have
shown a predictability of unforced CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux variability up to several
years, particularly in the North Atlantic subpolar gyre, suggesting that
there is room for improvement for the NorCPM1 decadal predictions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS4">
  <label>3.2.4</label><title>Sea ice variability</title>
      <p id="d1e3835">Previous studies have found robust initialization benefits for sea ice
prediction lasting for a couple of months (Guemas et al., 2016), with some
re-emergence of skill during the second year (Day et al., 2014). While these
studies reported strong seasonal dependencies, the evaluation here is
limited to hindcasts initialized in November. We evaluate LY1 predictions of
annual-mean sea ice concentration (SIC) against HadISST1 (Rayner et al.,
2003) over the period 1960–2018 that includes historical observations as
well as satellite estimates (Fig. 16). In the Arctic, the uninitialized
predictions (<italic>historical</italic>) show externally forced skill in the Barents, Kara and Chukchi
seas as well as the Canadian Archipelago (Fig. 16a). <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> shows consistently
higher ACCs than <italic>historical</italic> in these regions and additionally exhibits first-year
skill in sub-Arctic regions, e.g. in the Bering and<?pagebreak page7096?> Greenland seas (Fig. 16b).
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> benefits from a stronger constraint on the sea ice initial state
compared to <italic>hindcast-i1</italic>, resulting in generally higher and more
widespread skill (Fig. 16c). In the Antarctic, <italic>historical</italic> shows patches of both positive and negative ACC
(Fig. 16d). There are nearly no regions where <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> shows negative ACC, while
regions with positive ACC are limited to the east Pacific sector of the
Southern Ocean (Fig. 16e). <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> shows even more positive skill, which extends
into the Atlantic sector (Fig. 16f), but also some negative skill in the
Pacific sector, albeit less negative than that in <italic>historical</italic>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{16}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 16</label><caption><p id="d1e3868">ACC for sea ice concentration (SIC) for <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(a, d)</bold>, <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(b, e)</bold> and
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> <bold>(c, f)</bold> in the Arctic <bold>(a, b, c)</bold> and Antarctic <bold>(d, e, f)</bold> for LY1.
Observations are from HadISST1 (Rayner et al., 2003) over the period
1960–2018. The data are interpolated to a regular <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f16.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3922">We address seasonal dependence and temporal forecast limit of sea ice
prediction by computing the ACC of total Arctic and Antarctic sea ice area
as a function of lead month after November initialization (Fig. 17a, c). The
Arctic ACC of <italic>persistence</italic> drops rapidly and both <italic>hindcast-i1</italic>
and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> show comparable or higher skill
during the first winter and into spring. From early summer, the ACCs of
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> remain close to zero. In contrast, <italic>hindcast-i2</italic>
shows some re-emergence of skill from
the first autumn extending into the second year. Performing 3-month
pre-averaging makes the skill re-emergence for <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> and improvements over
<italic>hindcast-i1,</italic> <italic>persistence </italic>and <italic>historical<?pagebreak page7097?></italic> clearer
(Fig. 17b, d). The uninitialized prediction from <italic>historical</italic> shows some
skill during autumn and winter but no skill during summer. For the
Antarctic, both uninitialized and initialized predictions perform inferior
to <italic>persistence</italic>, with <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> performing worst
(Fig. 17c, d). Nevertheless, <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic>, which provide
the initial conditions for <italic>hindcast-i1 and hindcast-i2</italic>, outperform
<italic>persistence</italic> during most of the year, except in
austral winter when <italic>persistence</italic> shows re-emerging skill. This suggests that model errors
are skill limiting rather than imperfect initialization in that region.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F17" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{17}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 17</label><caption><p id="d1e3981">ACC for Arctic <bold>(a, b)</bold> and Antarctic <bold>(c, d)</bold> total ice area as a
function of lead month for monthly averages <bold>(a, c)</bold> and 3-month
averages <bold>(b, d)</bold>. The persistence forecast uses the observed October mean, while the
hindcasts were initialized 1 November. Observations are from HadISST1
(Rayner et al., 2003) and limited to the satellite era (1979–2018).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f17.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4002">Since regional sea ice variability is not necessarily in phase with total
hemispheric sea ice area, we define a hemispherically integrated skill score
for predicting local (i.e. grid-cell scale) sea ice conditions (Fig. 18).
We first interpolate observation and model data to a common <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid and then reduce the space and time dimensions
to a vector that is used in the ACC computation. We apply square root
grid-cell area weighting and only consider cells with non-zero temporal
standard deviation. The squared score gives the fraction of predicted sea
ice concentration variance. A theoretical score of one would imply perfect
prediction in every location (note the score depends on the resolution of
the common grid). In addition to monthly ACCs (Fig. 18a, c), we present
3-monthly ACCs (Fig. 18b, d) that are smoother. For the Arctic (Fig. 18a),
the <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> score reaches 0.4 during the first lead month, outperforming the
sharply dropping <italic>persistence</italic> score (with 1-month <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-folding scale) and remains
significantly higher than the uninitialized <italic>historical</italic> score throughout winter and
spring and marginally higher during the remainder of the two lead years.
<italic>persistence</italic> shows a re-emergence of skill during summer and autumn that is present but
weaker in <italic>hindcast-i2</italic>. <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> shows a score below 0.3 for the first lead month and no
initialization benefit after the first spring. Consistent with these
differences in hindcast scores, <italic>assim-i2</italic> features consistently higher scores than <italic>assim-i1</italic>.
For the Antarctic (Fig. 18c), the initialized predictions do better than the
uninitialized ones (with no or negative<?pagebreak page7098?> skill) but for the most part fall
behind <italic>persistence</italic>. <italic>assim-i2</italic> shows notably higher and more stable skill than <italic>assim-i1</italic>, explaining
better performance of <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> over <italic>hindcast-i1</italic>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F18" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{18}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 18</label><caption><p id="d1e4075">Hemispheric correlation skill for Arctic <bold>(a, b)</bold> and
Antarctic <bold>(c, d)</bold> ice area as a function of lead month for monthly averages <bold>(a, c)</bold>
and 3-month averages <bold>(b, d)</bold>. The data are first interpolated to a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid and correlations are then
computed jointly over space and time, applying area weighting and only
considering grid cells with non-zero temporal standard deviations. The
<italic>persistence</italic> forecast uses the observed October mean, while the hindcasts
were initialized 1 November. Observations are from HadISST1 (Rayner et al.,
2003) and limited to the satellite era (1979–2018).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f18.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4120">We have demonstrated initialization benefits for predicting sea ice up to
two years ahead in NorCPM1, but can initialization improve prediction of
decadal trends in Arctic sea ice decline? An analysis of Northern Hemisphere
integrated sea ice volume (SIV) provides little evidence for that (Fig. S15).
The initialized hindcasts have a tendency to simulate a flatter trend
than the <italic>historical</italic> experiment over the last decade, which arguably can be interpreted
as an improvement. Despite the lack of initialization benefit, the
comparison between the two reanalysis products and their corresponding
hindcasts is instructive and illustrates the importance of forecast drift
correction. As mentioned in Sect. 3.1, the sea ice state update in
<italic>assim-i2</italic> overall reduces the simulated SIV to values closer to observations, whereas
the climatology of <italic>assim-i1</italic> remains unaffected. Once assimilation is stopped, the
sea ice in <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> grows back towards levels comparable to the no-assimilation
<italic>historical</italic> experiment. As a result, the <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> predictions all simulate strongly
positive decadal SIV trends, whereas <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> produces flat or negative trends more
in line with observations. Adjusting for lead-dependent forecast drift
largely eliminates differences in the decadal SIV trends between the two
hindcast products.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS5">
  <label>3.2.5</label><title>Atmosphere variability</title>
      <p id="d1e4153">Transfer of skill from the ocean to the atmosphere and over land is key to
societally relevant climate prediction. We assess the extent such transfer
is realized in NorCPM1 from ACCs of SAT, PR, 500 hPa
geopotential height (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>500) and sea level pressure (SLP).</p>
      <?pagebreak page7099?><p id="d1e4163">For SAT, <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> shows considerable first-year and multiyear hindcast skill that
exceeds persistence skill over most land areas, except over central South
America and parts of Africa and South Asia (Fig. 19a, c). The LY1
initialization benefit (Fig. 19d) is highest over the subpolar North
Atlantic, extending from there over Scandinavia and western Siberia. Siberia
is also the only region where <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> consistently shows higher skill than
<italic>hindcast-i1</italic> (Fig. 19e). While the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs are not field significant, it is
plausible that differences in sea ice initialization impact skill over
adjacent land (Ringgaard et al., 2020). For LY1, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs relative
to <italic>historical</italic> (Fig. 19d) hint ENSO-related initialization benefits over low-latitude
coastal regions as well as over northwest North America. For LY2–5 and
LY6–9, the difference maps indicate little initialization benefit, implying
that most multiyear SAT skill over land stems from the externally forced
trend in NorCPM1. However, this result can be sensitive to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC
metric (Fig. S18 and related discussion in Sect. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F19" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{19}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 19</label><caption><p id="d1e4202">Prediction skill of 2 m temperature (SAT). ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(a)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>analysis-i1</italic> <bold>(b)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>persistence</italic> <bold>(c)</bold>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(d)</bold> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(e)</bold>
for LY1. The middle
and right columns show the same but for LY2–5 <bold>(f–j)</bold> and
LY6–9 <bold>(k–o)</bold>. Observations use HadCRUT4 (Morice et al., 2012) with coverage
for 1950–2019. Hatched areas are not locally significant; dotted areas are
field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f19.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4291">For PR, <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> exhibits positive skill over most land regions for all lead ranges
(Fig. 20a, f, k). For LY1 it is highest and field significant over the western
tropical Pacific and Indonesian Archipelago (Fig. 20a). The LY1 skill
difference to <italic>historical</italic> (Fig. 20d), a measure for the benefit from initialization,
resembles the <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> skill itself, suggesting only a small contribution from the
externally forced trend to the first-year skill. For LY2–5 and LY6–9, the
<italic>hindcast-i1 </italic>skill over the western tropical Pacific, Indonesian Archipelago and
Australia is considerably reduced or disappears, whereas it is enhanced over
north Africa, North America and northern Eurasia (Fig. 20f, k). It is
plausible to assume that the bulk of the multiyear skill is driven by the
externally forced changes in rainfall patterns and hydrological cycle (Dong
and Sutton, 2015), which is evidently the case over north Africa where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs relative to <italic>historical </italic>are small or even negative (Fig. 20i, n). However,
positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs over western North America and northern Eurasia for
all lead ranges suggest contributions from initialization. Most <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs for precipitation are not field significant and we cannot preclude
that they are a sampling artefact. This is in particular true for the
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> precipitation skill differences (Fig. 20e, j, o).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F20" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{20}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 20</label><caption><p id="d1e4339">Prediction skill of PR. ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(a)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>analysis-i1</italic> <bold>(b)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>persistence</italic> <bold>(c)</bold>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> – <italic>historical</italic> <bold>(d)</bold> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC of <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> – <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> <bold>(e)</bold>
for LY1. The middle and right
columns show the same but for LY2–5 <bold>(f–j)</bold> and
LY6–9 <bold>(k–o)</bold>. Observations use CRU TS4.03 (Harris et al., 2020) with
coverage for 1950–2018. Hatched areas are not locally significant; dotted areas
are field significant.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f20.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4427">Initialization benefits for predicting atmospheric circulation variability,
as diagnosed from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>500 (Fig. S16) and SLP (Fig. S17), are most robust for
LY1 owing to the influence of ENSO. For SLP, some multiyear initialization
benefits are also present – albeit not field significant – over the
extratropical Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean as well as the North American
and Eurasian continents. The DA update of sea ice in <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> slightly improves the
multiyear skill in the Arctic, though the differences are small and not
field significant.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS6">
  <label>3.2.6</label><title>Global skill evaluation</title>
      <p id="d1e4448">We globally summarize first-year and multiyear prediction skills by computing
ACCs over time and space for the variables assessed in previous sections
(Fig. 21). Skills are computed for LY1, LY2–5 and LY6–9 for the two
analyses and hindcast products and benchmarked against the uninitialized
historical predictions and persistence. The results are not<?pagebreak page7100?> particularly
sensitive to grid-cell variance normalization and therefore similar to the
globally averaged local (i.e. grid cell) ACC and also qualitatively similar
to the mean-square skill score (not shown).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F21" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{21}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 21</label><caption><p id="d1e4453"> Global correlation skill for sea surface temperature (SST, <bold>a</bold>),
0–300 m temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300, <bold>b</bold>), sea surface height (SSH, <bold>c</bold>), surface
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>d</bold>), column-integrated primary production (PP,
<bold>e, f</bold>), 2 m air temperature (SAT, <bold>g</bold>), land precipitation (PR, <bold>h</bold>) and sea
level pressure (SLP, <bold>i</bold>). The ACCs are computed over time and space after
weighting with the square root of the cell area. The box plots are
constructed from 1000 bootstrap ACC realizations. Potential predictability<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
of PP <bold>(f)</bold> is referenced to <italic>assim-i1</italic>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f21.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4535">For SST (Fig. 21a), which is assimilated, the ACCs of <italic>assim-i1</italic> and <italic>assim-i2</italic> exceed 0.8 for
all lead year ranges. After assimilation is discontinued, the values drop to
0.5 during the hindcasts. For LY1, this is still higher than and well
separated from the 0.4 value of the <italic>historical</italic> experiment, suggesting statistically
robust benefit from initialization for dynamical prediction with NorCPM1.
Consistent with better first-year skill in ice-covered regions,
<italic>hindcast-i2</italic> performs slightly better than <italic>hindcast-i1</italic>, and both hindcast products exhibit
marginally higher skill than persistence for LY1 (differences are not
statistically significant). For LY2–5 and LY6–9, the ACCs of the two
analyses and initialized hindcast products are very similar to or slightly
higher than those for LY1. For multiyear prediction, the ACC of the
<italic>historical</italic> experiment is on par with the initialized hindcast products, suggesting a
major contribution from the externally forced trend and negligible
initialization benefit. The fact that persistence scores lower than the
uninitialized historical experiment reveals that the skill contribution from
the externally forced trend is more than what could be expected from a
linear anthropogenic climate trend. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 (Fig. 21b), the ACCs of the two
analyses are 0.6–0.7, i.e. lower than for SST, presumably due to lower data
coverage and higher observation error. Similar as for SST, a clear
initialization benefit manifests for first-year prediction and only a hint
of benefit for multiyear prediction. SSH (Fig. 21c) shows initialization
benefit for first-year prediction but signs of detrimental initialization
impact for multiyear prediction. The ACC estimates for SSH are more
uncertain than for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300, partly owing to the shorter evaluation period.</p>
      <?pagebreak page7101?><p id="d1e4572">Surface CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux (Fig. 21d) and primary production (Fig. 21e) are
poorly constrained by the assimilation with the two analyses exhibiting ACCs
of 0.2 and below. It is therefore unsurprising that the initialized
hindcasts are not skilful and at best show marginal initialization benefit
over likewise unskilful uninitialized predictions of <italic>historical</italic>. However, Ilyina et
al. (2020) found a predictability of the global air–sea CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes of
up to 6 years when combining the members of the two hindcast sets,
suggesting considerable sensitivity to the chosen biogeochemistry skill
metric, spatial averaging, evaluation period and ensemble size. In contrast
to the hindcasts, the <italic>persistence</italic> skill for CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux exceeds 0.6 for LY1 and 0.3
for LY2–5, and for PP is close to 0.3 for LY1. When using <italic>assim-i1</italic> as observational
truth for primary production (Fig. 21f), the system suggests initialization
benefit for all lead years with hindcasts reaching ACCs close to 0.6 for
LY1. Inherent issues in the marine ecosystem parameterization to represent
realistic variability (Tjiputra et al., 2007; Gharamti et al., 2017) in
combination with observational uncertainties are likely causing this
discrepancy.</p>
      <p id="d1e4612">Assimilation in NorCPM1 updates the ocean and sea ice state but does not
directly constrain the atmospheric and land states. Nevertheless, the
assimilation can improve their prediction to the extent that SST and sea ice
control the atmospheric state. The ACCs for SAT (Fig. 21g) resemble those
for SST, but are lower, in particular for the two analyses. Land
precipitation (PR) exhibits ACCs of 0.4 independent of lead year range for
the two analyses, and 0.2 for the hindcasts for LY1, suggesting some success
in initializing ENSO. Contrary to SAT, the <italic>historical</italic> experiment and <italic>persistence</italic> both exhibit
zero skill for PR, both for annual means and multiyear means, despite
anthropogenic spin-up of the hydrological cycle and other external
influences. SLP (Fig. 21i) behaves differently in that the global ACCs of
<italic>persistence</italic>, ranging between 0.3 and 0.5, are consistently higher than those of
NorCPM1. Thus, the external forcing seems to have<?pagebreak page7102?> a significant influence on
the observed SLP variability, but NorCPM1 fails to capture it. For LY1, the
ACCs of the initialized hindcasts are slightly higher than those of the
<italic>historical</italic> experiment, again suggesting skilful initialization of ENSO.</p>
      <p id="d1e4627">We finally evaluate how well the system constrains the temporal evolution
of global means (Fig. 22). Especially in the context of climate change
attribution, it is of interest whether DA leads to improved representation
of global surface warming, global sea level change and strength of the
global hydrological cycle. The initialized hindcasts outperform <italic>persistence</italic> and
<italic>historical</italic> for SST and SAT for LY1. Beyond that, the results show little evidence of
initialization benefit, except a marginal improvement of multiyear mean
prediction for the oceanic CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux and a sizable potential
predictability<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> benefit for PP. While the initialized hindcasts performed
as well as or better than historical for globally averaged skill of local SST,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300 and SAT (Fig. 21a, b, g), <italic>hindcast-i1</italic> and <italic>hindcast-i2</italic> show slightly poorer multiyear skill
than <italic>historical</italic> in their global means (Fig. 22a, b, g). Except for SST, the reanalyses
mostly outperform both <italic>persistence</italic> and <italic>historical</italic> but not as clearly as for the globally averaged
skill. Interestingly the benefit from DA is considerably larger for global
precipitation than for global-mean<?pagebreak page7103?> SST, possibly indicating a strong control
of well constrained tropical – likely ENSO-related – SST variability on
large-scale precipitation. DA does not improve the match with the 16-year
short observational record of global sea level. Why exactly the globally
averaged grid-cell skills (Fig. 21) show more benefit from DA than the
skills of the global means (Fig. 22) is something that warrants further
investigation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F22" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{22}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 22</label><caption><p id="d1e4679">Correlation skill for global means of sea surface temperature
(SST, <bold>a</bold>), 0–300 m temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>300, <bold>b</bold>), sea surface height (SSH, <bold>c</bold>),
surface CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>d</bold>), column-integrated primary production
(PP, <bold>e, f</bold>), 2 m air temperature (SAT, <bold>g</bold>) and land precipitation (PR, <bold>h</bold>). The
box plots are constructed from 1000 bootstrap realizations of the
correlations. Potential predictability<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of PP <bold>(f)</bold> uses
<italic>assim-i1</italic> instead of real observations. The plotted correlation range varies for different variables.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/7073/2021/gmd-14-7073-2021-f22.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e4768">Evaluating interannual-to-multiyear variability in NorCPM1 simulations with
and without DA against observations, we found measurable initialization
benefits – particularly for first-year prediction – and only few signs of
detrimental effects from DA. In this section, we will further discuss the
findings, related caveats and potential improvements.</p>
      <p id="d1e4771">The anomaly assimilation scheme of NorCPM1 currently updates only the ocean
and sea ice components, and the atmosphere and land components are only
constrained to the extent that they are affected by the surface conditions.
Utilizing atmospheric observations and better constraining the atmospheric
circulation variability has potential to improve the ocean and sea ice
initialization by producing surface fluxes that are more consistent with the
SST and SIC anomalies during the assimilation phase. Constraining the
atmospheric circulation will also improve atmosphere and land
initialization, beneficial for subseasonal-to-seasonal prediction. The
success of utilizing initial conditions from forced ocean–sea ice
simulations (Yeager et al., 2018) demonstrates the potential in constraining
surface fluxes over ocean and sea ice for initializing multiyear climate
predictions. Performing EnKF ocean–sea ice assimilation in addition to
constraining the atmospheric variability is expected to further improve<?pagebreak page7104?> the
predictions (Polkova et al., 2019). Utilization of atmospheric observations
in NorCPM's initialization is a work in progress. A unified EnKF-based
assimilation scheme covering all ESM component would be desirable but is
subject to numerous technical and scientific challenges. As an intermediate
solution, we are exploring atmospheric nudging in combination with
EnKF-based ocean–sea ice assimilation in NorCPM, a strategy that has been
successfully applied in the Max Plank Institute Mittelfristige Klimaprognose (MPI-MiKlip) system (Polkova et al., 2019). We
will take advantage of the availability of multiple simulation members of
the reanalysis products like ERA5 (Hersbach et al., 2020) and CERA-20C
(Laloyaux et al., 2018) and nudge the members of the NorCPM analysis to
individual members of the reanalysis products to provide a representation of
atmospheric observational uncertainties and help generate ensemble spread in
the ocean state. We will complement the atmospheric nudging with the leading
average cross-covariance technique that has been shown to further improve
ocean initialization by performing a one-way (from atmosphere to ocean)
strongly coupled data assimilation (Lu et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e4774">NorCPM1 shows overall high multiyear prediction skill from external forcing,
with a modest and regionally limited increase in skill from improving the
initial conditions via DA. A caveat with using ACC differences for detecting
initialization benefit is that if the absolute ACCs are large, the ACC
differences become difficult to robustly detect. Smith et al. (2019)
proposed a more robust quantification method for initialization benefit,
where the forced signal of the model is regressed out of both the model and
observation data and ACCs are computed from the residuals (the result is
scaled to account for the smaller variance of the residuals; see Sect. S2
for more details). Figure S18 compares both methods, with the residual ACCs
showing clear initialization benefit for SAT over land regions where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs are statistically<?pagebreak page7105?> indistinguishable from zero. Like in Yeager et al. (2018),
we use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACCs in this study to systematically compare against
multiple benchmarks. The use of residual ACCs should, however, be of
interest for future work, especially for assessing the impact of DA
developments on forecast skill.</p>
      <p id="d1e4791">While the focus of this study leans towards DA innovations, future skill
improvement clearly depends also on improving the ESM component of NorCPM.
The dynamical model representation has been demonstrated key to skilful
climate prediction (Athanasiadis et al., 2020; Yeager et al., 2018) and
recent studies revealed a larger role of external forcing than previously
thought (Borchert et al., 2021; Klavans et al., 2021; Liguori et al.,
2020).
The skill benefit from DA-assisted initialization does not only relate to
synchronization of internal climate variability, but also to correcting the
externally forced climate signal at forecast initialization time – which is
subject model and forcing errors. We nevertheless expect a continuous need
for, and benefit from, improving NorCPM's assimilation, along with improving
its ESM component. We have seen from weather and seasonal forecasting how
improvements in both models and methods to assimilate observations (as well
as observations and computing power) have continued to lead to enhanced
prediction skill (Bauer et al., 2015). Work has started to upgrade NorCPM's
ESM component to NorESM2-MM (Seland et al., 2020) – featuring improved
physical process parameterizations, a higher atmospheric resolution, a more
realistic AMOC and overall reduced climate biases compared to NorESM1 – and
results of this effort will be documented in future publications. We
envision that the climate prediction evaluation and DA can increasingly
inform the development of NorESM, which traditionally focused on long-term
climate projections. There is growing evidence that current generation
climate models systematically underestimate the influence of SST variations
and external forcing variability on extratropical atmospheric variability,
particularly related to the North Atlantic Oscillation (e.g. Scaife and
Smith, 2018; Athanasiadis et al., 2020). While post-processing methods
relying on large ensembles have been proposed to mitigate this shortcoming
(Smith et al., 2020), improving this aspect in the next model generation
should be a key priority for the prediction community.</p>
      <p id="d1e4795">The significance testing used in this study (Appendix B) does not account
for observational error. Nowadays, observational reanalyses routinely
provide ensemble products that span observational uncertainty. While they are beyond
the scope of this study, future skill evaluations should explore ways of
utilizing this ensemble information in local and field significance testing.
The addition of observational uncertainty should generally lower the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, leading to stricter testing.</p>
      <p id="d1e4805">The ACC, our primary metric for quantifying skill in this study, is
sensitive to random correlation that can occur over the evaluation period as
it does not penalize for amplitude errors. The mean-square skill score
(MSSS), that penalizes amplitude errors, can be used as an alternative,
potentially more robust metric (Goddard et al., 2013, and Sect. S2). As we
found the MSSS results (Fig. S19) comparable to the ACC results (Fig. S10),
we decided to use ACC to facilitate comparison with previous works (e.g.
Yeager et al., 2018) and because amplitude errors stemming from the model
underestimating the forced climate signal can to some extent be corrected
posteriori (Smith et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2020). Our skill evaluation
based on annual means does not address seasonal effects. Separately
evaluating the skill for individual seasons may help us better understand the
origins of skill and utility for society.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4817">The Norwegian Climate Prediction Model version 1 (NorCPM1) is a new climate
prediction system that has contributed with model output to the Decadal
Climate Prediction Project as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project phase 6 (CMIP6 DCPP). NorCPM1 combines the Norwegian Earth System
Model version 1 (NorESM1) with an ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF)
anomaly assimilation of sea surface temperature and hydrographic profile
observations. This paper provides a description and evaluation of NorCPM1.</p>
      <p id="d1e4820">Compared to other dynamical climate prediction systems, NorCPM1
distinguishes itself by its EnKF anomaly assimilation that performs
cross-component ocean-to-sea-ice updates and is optimized for an ocean
vertical density coordinate. The EnKF scheme makes optimal use of the
observations by also updating unobserved variables using state-dependent
relations from the model's simulation ensemble. The use of these relations
further minimizes shock by ensuring that all variables are updated
consistently, to the extent the system behaves linearly. Through performing
EnKF anomaly assimilation and accounting for measurement and representation
errors in the observations, NorCPM1 aims at synchronizing internal
variability in a targeted and gentle manner to provide a reliable system
(i.e. where the ensemble spread reflects the true internal variability
error) that is mostly free of detrimental prediction shock. While on
a grid scale this allows certain mismatch between model and observations, our
evaluation of the assimilation experiments shows that the approach
accurately synchronizes the large-scale variability modes (such as ENSO,
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and SPG strength) that are likely to carry multiyear predictability.</p>
      <p id="d1e4823">The paper assessed the performance of the ESM component of the prediction
system. Upgrades of the external forcings from CMIP5 to CMIP6 and minor code
changes have only a minor impact on the model's climate representation
relative to the original NorESM1, which contributed to CMIP5. Spatial biases
in key climate variables have mostly remained the same, as has the global
climate response to external forcings. The conditional bias is hence<?pagebreak page7106?> largely
unaltered relative to previous NorCPM configurations. Noteworthy biases are
a 50 % too-strong Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, excessive
Arctic sea ice with cold adjacent continents, warm surface biases in the
subpolar North Atlantic and Southern Ocean that are mirrored by cold biases
at lower latitudes. In turn, the model's ENSO characteristics and its
historical global warming compare favourably to observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e4826">The paper assessed the performance of the assimilation capability with two
30-member climate reanalyses products that have been contributed to CMIP6
DCPP. Both assimilate SST and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-profile observations but differ in their
treatment of sea ice and reference period used to construct anomalies. The
anomaly assimilation of NorCPM1 does not show any detrimental effects on the
climatology and generally reduces the RMSE of both observed and unobserved
state variables (unobserved means not part of observation types that are
assimilated) in the assimilation experiments relative to the historical
experiment without assimilation. The application of cross-component anomaly
assimilation reduces a positive bias in Arctic sea ice thickness and
improves synchronization of sea ice variability and variability of other
climate variables, such as Southern Ocean sea surface height.</p>
      <p id="d1e4842">A challenge unique to anomaly assimilation is how to best construct the
anomalies. The choice of reference period has limited impact on their
correlation scores with observations, but it has significant impact on mean
and long-term trends, e.g. in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
strength and meridional ocean heat transport. Future NorCPM development
efforts will explore more sophisticated ways of designing climate anomalies,
e.g. following Chikamoto et al. (2019), addressing important issues such as
conditional bias and separation of internal variability versus externally
forced signals in observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e4845">The assimilation shows limited success in synchronizing variability in ocean
biogeochemistry variables like net primary production or air–sea CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
flux. This result contrasts findings of a perfect model study (Fransner et
al., 2020) with the ESM component of NorCPM1 that suggests strong control of
the physical state on interannual ocean biogeochemistry variability.
Imperfect synchronization of physical variability, short evaluation periods,
errors in observations and errors in the model representation of ocean
biogeochemistry and its interaction with physical processes can contribute
to this discrepancy.</p>
      <p id="d1e4857">The paper assessed the performance of the system to produce first-year and
multiyear climate predictions. We found robust initialization benefits for
first-year prediction across a range of climate variables that at least
partly are related to skilful synchronization of ENSO
variability. Predictability of sea ice extends into the second year in the
hindcast product initialized from a reanalysis that more strongly
constrains the sea ice state.</p>
      <p id="d1e4860">While the externally forced trend leads to significant multiyear prediction
skill, our evaluation provides limited evidence for robust initialization
benefits on multiyear timescales but also little indication for detrimental
effects from initialization. Multiyear initialization benefit is mainly
confined to SPNA in NorCPM1, where it largely offsets negative skill in
uninitialized predictions and leads to modest absolute skill that is
significantly lower than the skill from non-dynamical prediction such as
persistence forecast. After removing the forced signal, the initialization
benefit for SPNA translates into robust benefit for temperature over
adjacent land. The comparison of two differently initialized hindcast
products reveals a high sensitivity of the AMOC to the details of the
initialization approach with considerable impact on SPNA temperatures, such
as shift in mean state and long-term trend and hindcast drift behaviour.
Notwithstanding that both products struggle predicting the circulation
evolution, it indicates the potential for improving SPNA temperature
predictions by improving initialization of hydrographic anomalies that
condition the evolution of the large-scale ocean circulation. To realize the
full potential, however, would require a model representation of the
circulation with realistic mean state, variability and sensitivity to
external forcing, aspects we will prioritize in further NorCPM development.
Lead-dependent drift correction removes much of the differences between the
two products (including a strong forecast drift in sea ice thickness present
in one of the products) and therefore  also  has merits for
anomaly-initialized predictions, in particular if model output is intended
as input for climate impact studies.</p>
      <p id="d1e4863">The initialization of the physical model states does not robustly benefit
ocean biogeochemistry predictions in NorCPM1. This is unsurprising given the
aforementioned poor skill of the reanalyses used for hindcast
initialization. Thus, improving and understanding the lack of skill in the
reanalyses is paramount to improving NorCPM's ocean biogeochemistry
capability.</p>
      <p id="d1e4866">We found robust transfer of initialization skill benefit to atmosphere and
land for first-year prediction. As current climate models tend to
underestimate atmospheric signal-to-noise ratios, more hindcast simulation
members are expected to increase first-year skill and enable detection of
multiyear signals (Scaife and Smith, 2018; Smith et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e4870">In summary, we found demonstrable benefits from initialization for climate
prediction with NorCPM1. The initialization is virtually free of detrimental
effects. At this stage, NorCPM1 primarily serves as a research tool. Based
on the forecast quality evaluation presented in this paper, further
development is needed to reach multiyear prediction skill at a societally
useful level that makes the system more fit for operational use. To this
end, the evaluation in this paper will serve as a benchmark for further
NorCPM development, such as upgrades to the ESM component and refinements to
the assimilation approach with extension to all model components.
Deficiencies of NorCPM1 skill identified here will guide future research and
model development. The system has demonstrated promising seasonal prediction
capabilities<?pagebreak page7107?> (Wang et al., 2019; Kimmritz et al., 2019) and may already
contribute to skilful multiyear climate prediction with societal application
in a multi-model framework (Smith et al., 2020).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>Choice of DA scheme</title>
      <p id="d1e4884">There are multiple ways to initialize hindcasts, such as initialization from
existing reanalysis products produced with an independent system (e.g.
Chikamoto et al., 2019) or initialization of the ocean component by running
it uncoupled, forced with an atmospheric reanalysis product (Yeager et al.,
2018). In NorCPM1, the hindcasts are initialized from a reanalysis produced
with the same ESM that assimilates ocean observations with the Ensemble
Kalman filter (EnKF; Evensen, 2003). The advantage of using the same ESM is
that it avoids initialization adjustment that occurs when changing the
model. The EnKF is an advanced flow-dependent data assimilation method where
the multivariate corrections are based on a set of observations, their
uncertainty and the ensemble of model realization produced by a Monte Carlo
integration from the previous analysis step. Counillon et al. (2016) showed
that the upper ocean heat content in the equatorial and North Pacific, the
North Atlantic subpolar gyre region and the Nordic Seas can be well
constrained by assimilating SST anomalies with the EnKF. In particular, the
vertical covariance shows a pronounced seasonal and decadal variability that
highlights the benefit of flow-dependent data assimilation. In NorCPM1,
covariances in the ocean are formulated in isopycnal coordinates (the native
vertical coordinate of the ocean model), which allows for deeper influence
of the assimilated surface observations than when formulating them in
standard depth coordinate (Counillon et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e4887">Up to now, climate prediction systems have predominantly assimilated data
independently in their respective components, an approach referred to as
weakly coupled data assimilation (WCDA; Penny and Hamill, 2017). The other model
components adjust to these individual changes dynamically in between the
assimilation cycles. Allowing the assimilation to update across model
components is expected to outperform WCDA because it would enhance dynamical
consistency of the initial condition and expand the influence of the
observations across its own component (strongly coupled data assimilation,
SCDA; Penny and Hamill, 2017; Penny et al., 2019). The climate system includes complex,
coupled phenomena over wide, separated spatial and temporal scales of the
Earth system components (atmosphere, ocean, land surface, cryosphere). DA
procedures, on the other hand, are mostly designed to deal with a single
dominant scale of motion or under the assumption of weak coupling (Laloyaux
et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2020). Joint OSI-SCDA of ocean and sea ice has
been successful with flow-dependent DA methods such as the EnKF. The scale
separation between ocean and sea ice is not as pronounced as between ocean
and atmosphere. The application of flow-dependent covariance can handle well
the anisotropy and sign reversal of the covariance at the sea ice front
(Lisæter et al., 2003; Sakov et al., 2012) and the update of the
multi-category sea ice state (Massonnet et al., 2015; Kimmritz et al., 2018).
Application of the methods has since also been tested successfully in a
fully coupled ESM (Kimmritz et al., 2018) and used for seasonal prediction
of Arctic sea ice (Kimmritz et al., 2019). A full SCDA of the ESM is a more
challenging task because of the separation of spatial and temporal scales
among atmosphere and ocean. There have been many advances both theoretically
(Lu et al., 2015; Smith et al.,
2015; Tardif et al., 2015; Sluka et al.,
2016; Penny and Hamill, 2017) and on application, e.g. the CERA reanalysis
(Laloyaux et al., 2016) but no system is yet at the stage of achieving a
full SCDA. For interannual-to-decadal timescale, the largest part of
climate predictability resides in the ocean and sea ice (e.g. Mariotti et
al., 2018). Making use of the rich atmospheric observation network will be
explored in future NorCPM versions as it can further improve the
initialization of the slow modes of variability in the ocean where
observations are sparse and generally enhance the consistency of the system.</p>
      <p id="d1e4890">Climate models have strong biases that are in some places larger than the
internal variability (Richter et al., 2014). There are two common strategies
in the climate prediction communities to handle bias: full-field
assimilation requiring a subsequent post-processing to account for the model
adjustment back to its own attractor or anomaly assimilation where the
observed anomaly (calculated relative to a reference climatology) are
imposed on a biased model climatology (Weber et al., 2015). Both methods
have their advantages and disadvantages. NorCPM1 uses anomaly assimilation
because full-field assimilation is problematic with ensemble DA (Dee, 2005):
As models are attracted to their biased climatological states, the model
bias in the observed variables is propagated to the non-observed variables
by the multivariate covariance matrix, which leads to a slow degradation of
the system through the consecutive assimilation cycle. A challenge when
defining a climatological reference is to ensure that the climatological
reference is accurate and representative of the same variability between the
model and data. Estimating an accurate climatology for observations becomes
problematic in regions where observations are very sparse, limiting the
possible span of a reliable climatological period. Furthermore, while it is
usually possible for the model to nullify the internal variability by
averaging different ensemble members starting from different initial
conditions, there is only a single realization of the truth, and one must
ensure that the climatological period of the observation is long enough to
cancel out internal variability. Finally, it should be added that anomaly
assimilation only addresses climatological biases and conditional biases
such as in the variability and in the forced trends.</p>
      <?pagebreak page7108?><p id="d1e4893">An emerging number of climate prediction models include ocean
biogeochemistry (e.g. Séférian et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016;
Lovenduski et al., 2019; Park et al., 2019). Due to technical challenges
with implementing ocean biogeochemistry in DA systems related to data
sparsity and the non-Gaussian behaviour of many biogeochemical tracers,
assimilation of biogeochemical observations is commonly not applied in these
models (e.g. Park et al., 2019). Instead, the ocean biogeochemistry is
treated passively. This has been shown to constrain the biogeochemical
variability relatively well (Séférian et al., 2014; Li et al., 2019; Park et
al., 2019). There are, however, problems related to the update of physics
that introduces artificial mixing between surface and deep waters, leading
to excessive surface nutrient concentrations and primary production,
especially in the tropics (While et al., 2010; Park et al., 2018). Skilful
near-term predictions
of 4–7 years of air–sea CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> exchange (Li et
al., 2016, 2019), a couple of years for chlorophyll (Park et al., 2019) and
2–5 years for net primary production (NPP, Séférian et al., 2014) have been
achieved by this passive initialization of ocean biogeochemistry. Fransner
et al. (2020) showed, in a perfect model framework, that the initial state
of ocean biogeochemistry has little impact on the prediction skill beyond
LY1, and their work suggested that assimilation of biogeochemical tracers
would only give a marginal improvement in the predictive skill of ocean
biogeochemistry.</p>
</app>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{B}?><label>Appendix B</label><title>Skill scores and significance testing</title>
      <p id="d1e4913">Following Goddard et al. (2013), we use the anomaly correlation coefficient
(ACC) for assessing hindcast and reanalysis performance. We use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>ACC
score differences for comparing our reanalysis and hindcast products and for
benchmarking against uninitialized predictions and persistence forecast. As
in Goddard et al. (2013), we consider lead year 1 (LY1), lead years 2–5
(LY2–5) and lead years 6–9 (LY6–9) forecast ranges using multiyear
averages. For example, if a hindcast is initialized in October 1960, then LY1
corresponds to the average of 1961, i.e. the following calendar year.</p>
      <p id="d1e4923">If the temporal coverage of the observations is shorter than that of the
model output, we maximize the use of observations in the ACC computation.
For example, if the observations start in 1993 then the ACC computation for
LY6–9 will use hindcasts starting at the end of 1983 and later.
Consequently, the start dates used in the ACC computation may differ for the
different forecast ranges, while the evaluation period is fixed except in
the persistence forecast. The LY1 persistence forecast uses the
observational average of the previous year, while the LY2–5 and LY6–9
persistence forecasts use the average over the four previous years. This is
done because we found the effect of temporal filtering to outweigh the shift
towards older observations, resulting in persistence skills consistently
higher than if using the last month or last year instead.</p>
      <p id="d1e4926">Prior to the ACC computation, we interpolate model and observational data to
a common, regular <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid if not stated
otherwise. We do not remove the linear trend or other estimates of the
forced response, except when evaluating surface carbon flux. When comparing
ACCs of hindcasts (which comprise 10 simulation members) with uninitialized
predictions, we only use the first 10 members of <italic>historical </italic>because we want to isolate
the benefit of initialization without confounding it with the effect of
ensemble size on the accuracy of the externally forced trend estimate.</p>
      <p id="d1e4952">We test local and field significance of skill scores and score differences
following Yeager et al. (2018). We consider a score locally significant if
the associated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value (i.e. probability for producing a random score equal to
or higher than the score tested) is below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>:=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.1 (i.e. 90 %
confidence). Regions that fail the local significance test are marked with
slash/on the skill score maps (e.g. Fig. 7). We derive the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values by
means of resampling the original data that are interpolated to the common
grid. For each obtained skill score we construct 4000 bootstrapped scores
that capture random uncertainty stemming from temporal sampling and from
having a limited ensemble size. Using the moving block bootstrapping
technique, we resample the data (pairwise model–observation sampling with
replacement) in 5-year blocks that may start in any year but not in the last
4 years to account for temporal autocorrelation. The blocks are
concatenated, and the last block is truncated such that the bootstrapped
time series has the same length as the original series. Additionally, we
resample (with replacement) the ensemble members used in the computation of
the ensemble means. While the combination of members varies between
different bootstrapped time series, we keep it fixed within each series. We
test significance for both positive and negative scores. Following Goddard
et al. (2013), we estimate the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value for a particular skill score as the
fraction of bootstrapped scores with opposite sign of that of the score
tested (e.g. if the original score is positive and 200 out of the 4000
bootstrapped scores are negative, then we determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4000</mml:mn><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.05).
The rationale is to utilize the spread information from the bootstrapped
distribution to calculate the probability for obtaining a score equal to or
higher than the score tested, under the null hypothesis that the true score
is zero. We verified the bootstrap estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values on a large set of
artificially constructed series with known true correlation and found good
agreement with Monte Carlo estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bootstrap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MonteCarlo</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.95.</p>
      <p id="d1e5062">Local significance information has particular utility if considering a
single location of interest and if the choice of this location is not
informed by the spatial score distribution. Explorative analyses, however,
often simultaneously consider multiple locations of interest and make the
selection of locations dependent on the spatial score distribution as they
tend to focus on regions with the most extreme scores. In such cases, the use
of field significance is more meaningful. Like Yeager et al. (2018), we test
field significance using the<?pagebreak page7109?> false discovery rate (FDR) approach following
Wilks (2006, 2016), which has the practical advantage that it reuses the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values from the local significance test. The FDR algorithm determines
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> such that the false discovery rate in the region where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (locations marked with dot <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> on the maps) becomes
approximately equal to a target FDR of 10 %. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
stated on all ACC plots, is computed from Eq. (B1) where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th sorted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> a parameter that
controls the FDR.
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>B1</label><mml:math id="M240" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exists, then the test also rejects the global null hypothesis
that the true scores are zero everywhere at 90 % confidence level.
Assuming moderate to strong spatial correlation (Wilks, 2006), we set
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>:=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">global</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">global</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>:=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.1.
Consistent with intuition, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> tends to be close to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> if
most points are locally significant, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> if only few points are locally significant. In rare situations,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can become larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(due to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with the consequence that scores can be field
significant without being locally significant. We consider this an artefact
of the ad hoc adjustment of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for spatial correlation, and we set
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FDR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>:=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in such case.</p>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e5412">The NorCPM1 code can be downloaded from <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.11582/2021.00014</ext-link>
(Bethke, 2021a) or <uri>https://github.com/BjerknesCPU/NorCPM1-CMIP6</uri> (last access: 16 November 2021). The input
data needed for running the code can be downloaded from
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.11582/2021.00013</ext-link> (Bethke, 2021b).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e5427">The CMIP6 output of NorCPM1 is served through the Earth System Grid
Federation (ESGF). The output of the CMIP baseline and historical
simulations can be accessed at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10843" ext-link-type="DOI">10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10843</ext-link>
(Bethke et al., 2019a) and the output of the DCPP simulations at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10844" ext-link-type="DOI">10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10844</ext-link> (Bethke et al., 2019b).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e5436">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5445">IB coordinated the writing of this article. YW and IB performed the simulation
experiments with support from AG and PGC. YW and FC wrote the data assimilation
description and physical evaluation; YW produced the figures. FC wrote part
of the introduction. FF, AS and JT wrote the biogeochemistry part and
evaluation; FF and AS produced the figures. MK produced sea ice analyses and
figures. LS contributed to atmospheric evaluation; JSV, HL and LP contributed to
ocean evaluation. AK, DO and ØS contributed to the implementation of CMIP6
atmospheric forcing; YF contributed to the implementation of CMIP6 land forcing. CG and MB
contributed to analysis and visualization of the baseline climate; JSV and PGC contributed to
analysis and visualization of the predictions. NK, TE, MB, JT and FC
contributed to project administration and funding acquisition. All
co-authors contributed to conceptualization and writing of the article.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5451">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e5457">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5463">We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Computing and
storage resources have been provided by UNINETT Sigma2 (nn9039k, ns9039k,
ns9034k).</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5468">This research has been supported by the Trond Mohn stiftelse (grant no. BFS2018TMT01), the Norges Forskningsråd (grant nos. 309562, 301396, 270061, 276730 and 270733), the NordForsk (grant no. 76654), the European Commission, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (INTAROS (grant no. 727890)) and Horizon 2020 (BLUE-ACTION (grant no. 727852), SO-CHIC (grant no. 821001), TRIATLAS (grant no. 817578)).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5475">This paper was edited by Olivier Marti and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Athanasiadis, P. J., Yeager, S., Kwon, Y.-O., Bellucci, A., Smith, D. W.,
and Tibaldi, S.: Decadal predictability of North Atlantic blocking and the
NAO, NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 1–10,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0120-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-020-0120-6</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Årthun, M., Kolstad, E. W., Eldevik, T., and Keenlyside, N. S.: Time
Scales and Sources of European Temperature Variability, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 45, 3597–3604,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GL077401" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2018GL077401</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Assmann, K. M., Bentsen, M., Segschneider, J., and Heinze, C.: An isopycnic ocean carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 143–167, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-143-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-143-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical
weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature14956</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellucci, A., Haarsma, R., Bellouin, N., Booth, B., Cagnazzo, C., van den
Hurk, B., Keenlyside, N., Koenigk, T., Massonnet, F., Materia, S., and
Weiss, M.: Advancements in decadal climate predictability: The role of
nonoceanic drivers, Rev. Geophys., 53, 165–202,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000473" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014RG000473</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Eart<?pagebreak page7110?>h System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bethke, I.: NorCPM1-CMIP6-1.0.0 – The CMIP6 DCPP version of the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model, Norstore [code], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.11582/2021.00014</ext-link>, 2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bethke, I.: NorCPM1 input data for CMIP6 DCPP simulations, Norstore [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.11582/2021.00013</ext-link>, 2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bethke, I., Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Kimmritz, M., Fransner, F., Samuelsen,
A., Langehaug, H. R., Chiu, P.-G., Bentsen, M., Guo, C., Tjiputra, J.,
Kirkevåg, A., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Y., Fan, Y., Lawrence, P.,
Eldevik, T., and Keenlyside, N.: NCC NorCPM1 model output prepared for CMIP6
CMIP,   Norstore [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10843" ext-link-type="DOI">10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10843</ext-link>, 2019a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bethke, I., Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Kimmritz, M., Fransner, F., Samuelsen,
A., Langehaug, H. R., Chiu, P.-G., Bentsen, M., Guo, C., Tjiputra, J.,
Kirkevåg, A., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Y., Fan, Y., Lawrence, P.,
Eldevik, T., and Keenlyside, N.: NCC NorCPM1 model output prepared for CMIP6
DCPP, Norstore [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10844" ext-link-type="DOI">10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10844</ext-link>, 2019b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Billeau, S., Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., and Bertino, L.: Impact of
changing the assimilation cycle: centered vs. staggered, snapshot vs monthly
averaged, NERSC technical report 400, Nansen Environmental and Remote
Sensing Center, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bitz, C. M., Shell, K. M., Gent, P. R., Bailey, D. A., Danabasoglu, G.,
Armour, K. C.,  Holland, M. M., and  Kiehl, J. T.: Climate Sensitivity of the
Community Climate System Model, Version 4, J. Climate, 25, 3053–3070,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00290.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00290.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bleck, R. and Smith, L. T.: A wind-driven isopycnic coordinate model of the north and equatorial Atlantic Ocean: 1. Model development and supporting experiments, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 95, 3273–3285, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC03p03273, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bleck, R., Rooth, C., Hu, D., and Smith, L. T.: Salinity-driven Thermocline Transients in a Wind- and Thermohaline-forced Isopycnic Coordinate Model of the North Atlantic, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 22, 1486–1505, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1992)022&lt;1486:SDTTIA&gt;2.0.CO;2, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boer, G. J., Smith, D. M., Cassou, C., Doblas-Reyes, F., Danabasoglu, G., Kirtman, B., Kushnir, Y., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G. A., Msadek, R., Mueller, W. A., Taylor, K. E., Zwiers, F., Rixen, M., Ruprich-Robert, Y., and Eade, R.: The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3751–3777, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Böning, C. W., Scheinert, M., Dengg, J., Biastoch, A., and Funk, A.:
Decadal variability of subpolar gyre transport and its reverberation in the
North Atlantic overturning, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L21S01,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026906" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL026906</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Borchert, L. F., Menary, M. B., Swingedouw, D., Sgubin, G., Hermanson, L.,
and Mignot, J.: Improved Decadal Predictions of North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre
SST in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL091307,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091307" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL091307</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Branstator, G. and Teng, H.: Two Limits of Initial-Value Decadal
Predictability in a CGCM, J. Climate, 23, 6292–6311,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3678.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010JCLI3678.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Branstator, G., Teng, H., Meehl, G. A., Kimoto, M., Knight, J. R., Latif,
M., and Rosati, A.: Systematic Estimates of Initial-Value Decadal
Predictability for Six AOGCMs, J. Climate, 25, 1827–1846,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00227.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00227.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brune, S., Nerger, L., and Baehr, J.: Assimilation of oceanic observations
in a global coupled Earth system model with the SEIK filter, Ocean
Modell., 96, 254–264, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.09.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.09.011</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cassou, C., Kushnir, Y., Hawkins, E., Pirani, A., Kucharski, F., Kang,
I.-S., and Caltabiano, N.: Decadal Climate Variability and Predictability:
Challenges and Opportunities, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 99, 479–490, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0286.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0286.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Checa-Garcia, R., Hegglin, M. I., Kinnison, D., Plummer, D. A., and Shine,
K. P.: Historical tropospheric and stratospheric ozone radiative forcing
using the CMIP6 database, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 3264–3273,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076770" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL076770</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chikamoto, Y., Timmermann, A., Widlansky, M. J., Zhang, S., and Balmaseda,
M. A.: A Drift-Free Decadal Climate Prediction System for the Community
Earth System Model, J. Climate, 32, 5967–5995,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0788.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0788.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Collins, M., Botzet, M., Carril, A. F., Drange, H., Jouzeau, A., Latif, M.,
Masina, S., Otteraa, O. H., Pohlmann, H., Sorteberg, A., Sutton, R., and
Terray, L.: Interannual to Decadal Climate Predictability in the North
Atlantic: A Multimodel-Ensemble Study, J. Climate, 19, 1195–1203,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3654.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3654.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Counillon, F., Bethke, I., Keenlyside, N., Bentsen, M., Bertino, L., and
Zheng, F.: Seasonal-to-decadal predictions with the ensemble Kalman filter
and the Norwegian Earth System Model: a twin experiment, Tellus A, 66,
1–21, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.21074" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusa.v66.21074</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., Bethke, I., Wang, Y., Billeau, S., Shen, M.
L., and Bentsen, M.: Flow-dependent assimilation of sea surface temperature
in isopycnal coordinates with the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model, Tellus
A, 68, 1–17, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v68.32437" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusa.v68.32437</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., Toniazzo, T., Koseki, S., Demissie, T.,
Bethke, I., and Wang, Y.: Relating model bias and prediction skill in the
equatorial Atlantic, Clim. Dynam.,  56, 2617–2630,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05605-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-020-05605-8</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dai, P., Gao, Y., Counillon, F., Wang, Y., Kimmritz, M., and Langehaug, H.
R.: Seasonal to decadal predictions of regional Arctic sea ice by
assimilating sea surface temperature in the Norwegian Climate Prediction
Model, Clim. Dynam., 54, 3863–3878, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05196-4, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Danabasoglu, G., Yeager, S., Bailey, D., Behrens, E., Bentsen, M., Bi, D.,
Biastoch, A., Böning, C., Bozec, A., M. Canuto, V., Cassou, C.,
Chassignet, E., Coward, A., Danilov, S., Diansky, N., Drange, H., Farneti,
R., Fernandez, E., Fogli, P. G., and Wang, Q.: North Atlantic simulations in
Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part I: Mean
states, Ocean Modell., 73, 76-107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Day, J. J., Tietsche, S., and Hawkins, E.: Pan-Arctic and Regional Sea Ice
Predictability: Initialization Month Dependence, J. Climate, 27,
4371–4390, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00614.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00614.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Deser, C., Tomas, R., Alexander, M., and Lawrence, D.: The Seasonal
Atmospheric Response to Projected Arctic Sea Ice Los<?pagebreak page7111?>s in the Late
Twenty-First Century, J. Climate, 23, 333–351,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3053.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JCLI3053.1</ext-link>, 2010. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dong, B. and Sutton, R.: Dominant role of greenhouse-gas forcing in the
recovery of Sahel rainfall, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 757–760,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2664" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2664</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eden, C. and Jung, T.: North Atlantic Interdecadal Variability: Oceanic
Response to the North Atlantic Oscillation (1865–1997), J. Climate,
14, 676–691, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;0676:NAIVOR&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;0676:NAIVOR&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Enfield, D. B., Mestas-Nuñez, A. M., and Trimble, P. J.: The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2077–2080, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012745" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000GL012745</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eden, C. and Willebrand, J.: Mechanism of Interannual to Decadal Variability
of the North Atlantic Circulation, J. Climate, 14, 2266–2280,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2266:MOITDV&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2266:MOITDV&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Evensen, G.: The Ensemble Kalman Filter: theoretical formulation and
practical implementation, Ocean Dynam., 53, 343–367,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-003-0036-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10236-003-0036-9</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fransner, F., Counillon, F., Bethke, I., Tjiputra, J., Samuelsen, A.,
Nummelin, A., and Olsen, A.: Ocean Biogeochemical
Predictions – Initialization and Limits of Predictability, Front. Mar. Sci.,
7, 386, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00386" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fmars.2020.00386</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Frigstad, H., Andersen, T., Bellerby, R. G., Silyakova, A., and Hessen, D.
O.: Variation in the seston C:N ratio of the Arctic Ocean and pan-Arctic
shelves, J. Marine Syst., 129, 214–223,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.004</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Frölicher, T. L., Ramseyer, L., Raible, C. C., Rodgers, K. B., and Dunne, J.: Potential predictability of marine ecosystem drivers, Biogeosciences, 17, 2061–2083, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2061-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-17-2061-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garnesson, P., Mangin, A., Fanton d'Andon, O., Demaria, J., and Bretagnon, M.: The CMEMS GlobColour chlorophyll a product based on satellite observation: multi-sensor merging and flagging strategies, Ocean Sci., 15, 819–830, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-819-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/os-15-819-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gaspari, G. and Cohn, S. E.: Construction of correlation functions in two
and three dimensions, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 723–757,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555417" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49712555417</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gharamti, M., Tjiputra, J., Bethke, I., Samuelsen, A., Skjelvan, I.,
Bentsen, M., and Bertino, L.: Ensemble data assimilation for ocean
biogeochemical state and parameter estimation at different sites, Ocean
Modell., 112, 65–89,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.02.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.02.006</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gidden, M. J., Riahi, K., Smith, S. J., Fujimori, S., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D. P., van den Berg, M., Feng, L., Klein, D., Calvin, K., Doelman, J. C., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Hilaire, J., Hoesly, R., Horing, J., Popp, A., Stehfest, E., and Takahashi, K.: Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1443–1475, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Goddard, L., Kumar, A., Solomon, A., Smith, D., Boer, G., Gonzalez, P., Kharin, V., Merryfield, W., Deser, C., Mason, S. J., Kirtman, B. P., Msadek, R., Sutton, R., Hawkings, E., Fricker, T., Hegerl, G., Ferro, C. A. T., Stephenson, D. B., Meehl, G. A., Stockdale, T., Burgman, R., Greene, A. M., Kushnir, Y., Newman, M., Carton, J., Fukumori, I., and Delworth, T.:  A verification
framework for interannual-to-decadal predictions experiments, Clim.
Dynam., 40, 245–272, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1481-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-012-1481-2</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Good, S., Martin, M. J., and Rayner, N.: EN4: Quality controlled ocean
temperature and salinity profiles and monthly objective analyses with
uncertainty estimates, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 118,
6704–6716, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009067" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JC009067</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gouretski, V. and Reseghetti, F.: On depth and temperature biases in
bathythermograph data: Development of a new correction scheme based on
analysis of a global ocean database, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I, 57, 812–833, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.03.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr.2010.03.011</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Graff, L. S., Iversen, T., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Kirkevåg, A., Li, C., and Olivié, D. J. L.: Arctic amplification under global warming of 1.5 and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in NorESM1-Happi, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 569–598, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-569-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esd-10-569-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Guemas, V., Chevallier, M., Déqué, M., Bellprat, O., and
Doblas-Reyes, F.: Impact of sea ice initialization on sea ice and atmosphere
prediction skill on seasonal timescales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
3889–3896, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066626" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL066626</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Häkkinen, S. and Rhines, P. B.: Decline of Subpolar North Atlantic
Circulation During the 1990s, Science, 304, 555–559,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094917" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1094917</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU
TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset, Sci.
Data, 7, 1–18, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hátún, H., Sandø, A. B., Drange, H., Hansen, B., and Valdimarsson, H.: Influence of the Atlantic Subpolar Gyre on the Thermohaline Circulation, Science, 309, 1841–1844, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114777, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hátún, H., Lohmann, K., Matei, D., Jungclaus, J., Pacariz, S.,
Bersch, M., Gislason, A., Ólafsson, J., and Reid, P.: An inflated
subpolar gyre blows life toward the northeastern Atlantic, Prog.
Oceanogr., 147, 49–66,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.07.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.pocean.2016.07.009</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hegglin, M., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J.-F., and Plummer, D.: CCMI ozone in
support of CMIP6 – version 1.0. Versions 20160830 (preindustrial), 20160711
(historical), 20181101 (ssp2-45), Earth System Grid Federation [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hendricks, S., Paul, S., and Rinne, E.: ESA Sea Ice Climate Change
Initiative (Sea_Ice_cci): Northern hemisphere
sea ice thickness from the CryoSat-2 satellite on a monthly grid (L3C),
v2.0,  CEDA [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5285/ff79d140824f42dd92b204b4f1e9e7c2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5285/ff79d140824f42dd92b204b4f1e9e7c2</ext-link>, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page7112?><ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hendricks, S., Paul, S., and Rinne, E.: ESA Sea Ice Climate Change
Initiative (Sea_Ice_cci): Northern hemisphere
sea ice thickness from the Envisat satellite on a monthly grid (L3C), v2.0,  CEDA [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5285/f4c34f4f0f1d4d0da06d771f6972f180" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5285/f4c34f4f0f1d4d0da06d771f6972f180</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.:  The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3803</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Huang, B., Thorne, P. W., Banzon, V. F., Boyer, T., Chepurin, G., Lawrimore,
J. H., Menne, M. J., Smith, T. M., Vose, R. S., and Zhang, H.-M.: Extended
reconstructed sea surface temperature, version 5 (ERSSTv5): upgrades,
validations, and intercomparisons, J. Climate, 30, 8179–8205,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hoesly, R. M., Smith, S. J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Pitkanen, T., Seibert, J. J., Vu, L., Andres, R. J., Bolt, R. M., Bond, T. C., Dawidowski, L., Kholod, N., Kurokawa, J.-I., Li, M., Liu, L., Lu, Z., Moura, M. C. P., O'Rourke, P. R., and Zhang, Q.: Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 369–408, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Houtekamer, P. L. and Mitchell, H. L.: Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble
Kalman Filter Technique, Mon. Weather Rev., 126, 796–811,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126&lt;0796:DAUAEK&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126&lt;0796:DAUAEK&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic–Viscous–Plastic Model for Sea
Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hurrell, J. W., Holland, M. M., Gent, P. R., Ghan, S., Kay, J. E., Kushner,
P. J., Lamarque, J., Large, W. G., Lawrence, D., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H.,
Long, M. C., Mahowald, N., Marsh, D. R., Neale, R. B., Rasch, P., Vavrus, S.,
Vertenstein, M., Bader, D., Collins, W. D., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J., and
Marshall, S.: The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for
Collaborative Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 1339–1360,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ilyina, T., Li, H., Spring, A., Müller, W. A., Bopp, L., Chikamoto, M.
O., Danabasoglu, G., Dobrynn in, M., Dunne, J., Fransner, F.,
Friedlingstein, P., Lee, W., Lovenduski, N. S., Merryfield, W., Mignot, J.,
Park, J., Séférian, R., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Watanabe, M., and
Yeager, S.: Predictable variations of the carbon sinks and atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
growth in a multi-model framework, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090695,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090695" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL090695</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Iversen, T., Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Kristjansson, J. E., Medhaug, I., Sand, M., and Seierstad, I. A.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 2: Climate response and scenario projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 389–415, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-389-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-389-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johns, W. E., Baringer, M. O., Beal, L. M., Cunningham, S. A., Kanzow, T.,
Bryden, H. L., Hirschi, J. J. M., Marotzke, J., Meinen, C. S., Shaw, B., and
Curry, R.: Continuous, Array-Based Estimates of Atlantic Ocean Heat
Transport at 26.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, J. Climate, 24, 2429–2449,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3997.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010JCLI3997.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., and Joseph, D.:  The NCEP/NCAR 40-year
reanalysis project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77,
437–472, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Karspeck, A. R., Yeager, S., Danabasoglu, G., Hoar, T., Collins, N., Raeder,
K., Anderson, J., and Tribbia, J.: An ensemble adjustment kalman filter for
the CCSM4 ocean component, J. Climate, 26, 7392–7413,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00402.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00402.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Karspeck, A. R., Stammer, D., Köhl, A., Danabasoglu, G.,
Balmaseda, M., Smith, D. M., Fujii, Y., Zhang, S., Giese, B., Tsujino, H.,
and Rosati, A.: Comparison of the Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation between 1960 and 2007 in six ocean reanalysis products, Clim.
Dynam., 49, 957–982, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2787-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-015-2787-7</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Keenlyside, N., Latif, M., Jungclaus, J., Kornblueh, L., and Roeckner, E.:
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector,
Nature, 453, 84–88, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06921" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature06921</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Keenlyside, N. S. and Ba, J.: Prospects for decadal climate prediction,
WIREs Clim. Change, 1, 627–635,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.69" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wcc.69</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Keenlyside, N. S., Ba, J., Mecking, J., Omrani, N.-E., Latif, M., Zhang, R.,
and Msadek, R.: North Atlantic Multi-Decadal Variability  –  Mechanisms and
Predictability, chap. 9, 141–157,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579933_0009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1142/9789814579933_0009</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kimmritz, M., Counillon, F., Bitz, C., Massonnet, F., Bethke, I., and Gao,
Y.: Optimising assimilation of sea ice concentration in an Earth system
model with a multicategory sea ice model, Tellus A, 70, 1435945, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2018.1435945" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/16000870.2018.1435945</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kimmritz, M., Counillon, F., Smedsrud, L., Bethke, I., Keenlyside, N.,
Ogawa, F., and Wang, Y.: Impact of Ocean and Sea Ice Initialisation On
Seasonal Prediction Skill in the Arctic, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 11, 4147–4166, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001825" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019MS001825</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kirkevåg, A., Iversen, T., Seland, Ø., Hoose, C., Kristjánsson, J. E., Struthers, H., Ekman, A. M. L., Ghan, S., Griesfeller, J., Nilsson, E. D., and Schulz, M.: Aerosol–climate interactions in the Norwegian Earth System Model – NorESM1-M, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 207–244, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-207-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-207-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kirtman, B., Power, S., Adedoyin, J., Boer, G., Bojariu, R., Camilloni, I.,
Doblas-Reyes, F., Fiore, A., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G., Prather, M., Sarr, A.,
Schär, C., Sutton, R., van Oldenborgh, G., Vecchi, G., and Wang, H.:
Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability, book section 11,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 953–1028, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/CBO9781107415324.023</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Klavans, J. M., Cane, M. A., Clement, A. C., and Murphy, L. N.: NAO
predictability from external forcing in the late 20th century, npj Clim.
Atmos. Sci., 4, 1–8,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00177-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-021-00177-8</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page7113?><ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Koul, V., Tesdal, J.-E., Bersch, M., Hátún, H., Brune, S., Borchert,
L., Haak, H., Schrum, C., and Baehr, J.: Unraveling the choice of the north
Atlantic subpolar gyre index, Sci. Rep., 10, 1–12, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Krumhardt, K. M., Lovenduski, N. S., Long, M. C., Luo, J. Y., Lindsay, K.,
Yeager, S., and Harrison, C.: Potential Predictability of Net Primary
Production in the Ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 34, e2020GB006531,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GB006531" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GB006531</ext-link>, 2020. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>: Kushnir, Y., Scaife, A. A., Arritt, R., Balsamo, G., Boer, G., Doblas-Reyes, F., Hawkins, E., Kimoto, M., Kolli, R. K., Kumar, A., Matei, D., Matthes, K., Müller, O’Kane, W. T., Perlwitz, J., Power, S., Raphael, M., Shimpo, A., Smith, D., Tuma, M., and Wu, B.:  Towards
operational predictions of the near-term climate, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
94–101, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0359-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-018-0359-7</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Laloyaux, P., Balmaseda, M., Dee, D., Mogensen, K., and Janssen, P.: A
coupled data assimilation system for climate reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 142, 65–78, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2629" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2629</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Laloyaux, P., de Boisseson, E., Balmaseda, M., Bidlot, J.-R., Broennimann,
S., Buizza, R., Dalhgren, P., Dee, D., Haimberger, L., Hersbach, H., Kosaka,
Y., Martin, M., Poli, P., Rayner, N., Rustemeier, E., and Schepers, D.:
CERA-20C: A Coupled Reanalysis of the Twentieth Century, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1172–1195,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001273" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001273</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Landschützer, P., Bushinsky, S., and Gray, A. R.: A combined globally
mapped CO2 flux estimate based on the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas Database
(SOCAT) and Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling
(SOCCOM) biogeochemistry floats from 1982 to 2017 (NCEI Accession 0191304),
Version 1.1, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set],
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25921/9hsn-xq82" ext-link-type="DOI">10.25921/9hsn-xq82</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Larnicol, G., Guinehut, S., Rio, M. H., Drévillon, M., Faugere, Y., and
Nicolas, G.: The Global Observed Ocean Products of the French Mercator
Project, ESA Special Publication, 614, ISBN:92-9092-925-1,  2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Latif, M. and Keenlyside, N. S.: A perspective on decadal climate
variability and predictability, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 58, 1880–1894,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.066" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.066</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lawrence, D. M., Hurtt, G. C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Calvin, K. V., Jones, A. D., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, P. J., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Pongratz, J., Seneviratne, S. I., and Shevliakova, E.: The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2973–2998, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lawrence, D. M., Oleson, K. W., Flanner, M. G., Thornton, P. E., Swenson, S.
C., Lawrence, P. J., Zeng, X., Yang, Z.-L., Levis, S., Sakaguchi, K., Bonan,
G. B., and Slater, A. G.: Parameterization improvements and functional and
structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 3, M03001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011MS00045</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levitus, S., Burgett, R., and Boyer, T.: World Ocean Atlas 1994, vol. 3,
Salinity, U.S. Dep. of Commer., Washington, DC, 1994a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levitus, S., Burgett, R., and Boyer, T.: World Ocean Atlas 1994, vol. 4,
Temperature, U.S. Dep. of Commer., Washington, DC, 1994b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Li, H., Ilyina, T., Müller, W. A., and Sienz, F.: Decadal predictions of
the North Atlantic CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> uptake, Nat. Commun., 7, 11076 EP,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11076" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms11076</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Li, H., Ilyina, T., Müller, W. A., and Landschützer, P.: Predicting
the variable ocean carbon sink, Sci. Adv., 5, eaav6471,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav6471" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.aav6471</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Liguori, G., McGregor, S., Arblaster, J. M., Singh, M. S., and Meehl, G. A.: A joint role for forced and internally-driven variability in the decadal modulation of global warming, Nat. Commun., 11, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17683-7, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Lisæter, K. A., Rosanova, J., and Evensen, G.: Assimilation of ice concentration in a coupled ice–ocean model, using the Ensemble Kalman filter, Ocean Dynam., 53, 368–388, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-003-0049-4, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lohmann, K., Drange, H., and Bentsen, M.: A possible mechanism for the
strong weakening of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre in the mid-1990s,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15602, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039166" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL039166</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lovenduski, N. S., Yeager, S. G., Lindsay, K., and Long, M. C.: Predicting near-term variability in ocean carbon uptake, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 45–57, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-45-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esd-10-45-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lu, F., Liu, Z., Zhang, S., and Liu, Y.: Strongly Coupled Data Assimilation
Using Leading Averaged Coupled Covariance (LACC). Part I: Simple Model
Study, Mon. Weather Rev., 143, 3823–3837,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00322.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-14-00322.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lu, Z., Fu, Z., Hua, L., Yuan, N., and Chen, L.: Evaluation of ENSO
simulations in CMIP5 models: A new perspective based on percolation phase
transition in complex networks, Sci. Rep., 8, 1–13,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33340-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-018-33340-y</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Maier-Reimer, E., Kriest, I., Segschneider, J., and Wetzel, P.: The HAMburg
Ocean Carbon Cycle model HAMOCC 5.1 – Technical description release 1.1,
Reports on Earth System Science 14, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology,
Hamburg, Germany, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Mariotti, A., Ruti, P. M., and Rixen, M.: Progress in subseasonal to seasonal prediction through a joint weather and climate community effort, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 1, 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0014-z, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Massonnet, F., Fichefet, T., and Goosse, H.: Prospects for improved seasonal Arctic sea ice predictions from multivariate data assimilation, Ocean Modell., 88, 16–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.12.013, 2015</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Matthes, K., Funke, B., Andersson, M. E., Barnard, L., Beer, J., Charbonneau, P., Clilverd, M. A., Dudok de Wit, T., Haberreiter, M., Hendry, A., Jackman, C. H., Kretzschmar, M., Kruschke, T., Kunze, M., Langematz, U., Marsh, D. R., Maycock, A. C., Misios, S., Rodger, C. J., Scaife, A. A., Seppälä, A., Shangguan, M., Sinnhuber, M., Tourpali, K., Usoskin, I., van de Kamp, M., Verronen, P. T., and Versick, S.: Solar forcing for CMIP6 (v3.2), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2247–2302, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Medhaug, I., Stolpe, M. B., Fischer, E. M., and Knutti, R.: Reconciling
controversies about the “global warming hiatus”, Nature, 545, 41–47,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22315" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature22315</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meehl, G. A., Goddard, L., Murphy, J., Stouffer, R. J., Boer, G.,
Danabasoglu, G., Dixon, K., Giorgetta, M. A., Greene, A. M., Hawkins, E.,
Hegerl, G., Karoly, D., Keenlyside, N., Kimoto, M., Kirtman, B., Navarra,
A., Pulwarty, R., Smith, D., Stammer, D., and Stockdale, T.: Decadal
Prediction: Ca<?pagebreak page7114?>n It Be Skillful?, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 90, 1467–1486, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2778.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009BAMS2778.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meehl, G. A., Goddard, L., Boer, G., Burgman, R., Branstator, G., Cassou,
C., Corti, S., Danabasoglu, G., Doblas-Reyes, F., Hawkins, E., Karspeck, A.,
Kimoto, M., Kumar, A., Matei, D., Mignot, J., Msadek, R., Navarra, A.,
Pohlmann, H., Rienecker, M., Rosati, T., Schneider, E., Smith, D., Sutton,
R., Teng, H., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Vecchi, G., and Yeager, S.: Decadal
Climate Prediction: An Update from the Trenches, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 95, 243–267,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00241.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00241.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meehl, G. A., Richter, J. H., Teng, H., Capotondi, A., Cobb, K., Doblas-Reyes, F., Donat, M. G., England, M. H., Fyfe, J. C., Han, W., Kim, H., Kirtman, B. P., Kushnir, Y., Lovenduski, N. S., Mann, M. E., Merryfield, W. J., Nieves, V., Kathy, P., Rosenbloom, N., Sanchez, S. C., Scaife, A. A., Smith, D., Subramanian, A. C., Sun, L., Thompson, D., Ummenhofer, C. C., and Xie, S.-P.: Initialized Earth System prediction from subseasonal to decadal
timescales, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 2, 340–357, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meinen, C. S. and McPhaden, M. J.: Observations of Warm Water Volume Changes
in the Equatorial Pacific and Their Relationship to El Niño and La
Niña, J. Climate, 13, 3551–3559,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013&lt;3551:OOWWVC&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013&lt;3551:OOWWVC&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meinshausen, M., Vogel, E., Nauels, A., Lorbacher, K., Meinshausen, N., Etheridge, D. M., Fraser, P. J., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Trudinger, C. M., Krummel, P. B., Beyerle, U., Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., Enting, I. G., Law, R. M., Lunder, C. R., O'Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Reimann, S., Rubino, M., Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., Wang, R. H. J., and Weiss, R.: Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2057–2116, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib107"><label>107</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mochizuki, T., Ishii, M., Kimoto, M., Chikamoto, Y., Watanabe, M., Nozawa,
T., Sakamoto, T. T., Shiogama, H., Awaji, T., Sugiura, N., Toyoda, T.,
Yasunaka, S., Tatebe, H., and Mori, M.: Pacific decadal oscillation
hindcasts relevant to near-term climate prediction, P.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 1833–1837,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906531107" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0906531107</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib108"><label>108</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., and Jones, P. D.: Quantifying
uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of
observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 117, D08101, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD017187</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib109"><label>109</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Msadek, R., Delworth, T. L., Rosati, A., Anderson, W., Vecchi, G., Chang,
Y.-S., Dixon, K., Gudgel, R. G., Stern, W., Wittenberg, A., Yang, X., Zeng,
F., Zhang, R., and Zhang, S.: Predicting a Decadal Shift in North Atlantic
Climate Variability Using the GFDL Forecast System, J. Climate, 27,
6472–6496, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00476.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00476.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib110"><label>110</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Natvik, L.-J. and Evensen, G.: Assimilation of ocean colour data into a
biochemical model of the North Atlantic: Part 2. Statistical analysis,
J. Marine Syst., 40-41, 155–169,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(03)00017-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0924-7963(03)00017-4</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib111"><label>111</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Neale, B, R., Richter, J. H., Conley, A. J., Park, S., Lauritzen, P. H.,
Gettelman, A., Williamson, D. L., Rasch, P. J., Vavrus, S. J., Collins, W.
D, Taylor, M. A., Zhang, M., and Lin, S.-J.: Description of the NCAR
Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 4.0), NCAR TECHNICAL NOTE, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib112"><label>112</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Omrani, N.-E., Keenlyside, N. S., Bader, J., and Manzini, E.: Stratosphere
key for wintertime atmospheric response to warm Atlantic decadal conditions,
Clim. Dynam., 42, 649–663,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1860-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-013-1860-3</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib113"><label>113</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Park, J.-Y., Stock, C. A., Yang, X., Dunne, J. P., Rosati, A., John, J., and
Zhang, S.: Modeling Global Ocean Biogeochemistry With Physical Data
Assimilation: A Pragmatic Solution to the Equatorial Instability, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 891–906,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001223" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017MS001223</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib114"><label>114</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Park, J.-Y., Stock, C. A., Dunne, J. P., Yang, X., and Rosati, A.: Seasonal
to multiannual marine ecosystem prediction with a global Earth system model,
Science, 365, 284–288, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6634" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aav6634</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib115"><label>115</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Penny, S. G. and Hamill, T. M.: Coupled data assimilation for integrated earth system analysis and prediction, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, ES169–ES172, https://doi.org/10.2307/26243775, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib116"><label>116</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Penny, S. G., Bach, E., Bhargava, K., Chang, C.-C., Da, C., Sun, L., and
Yoshida, T.: Strongly Coupled Data Assimilation in Multiscale Media:
Experiments Using a Quasi-Geostrophic Coupled Model, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1803–1829,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001652" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019MS001652</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib117"><label>117</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Polkova, I., Brune, S., Kadow, C., Romanova, V., Gollan, G., Baehr, J.,
Glowienka-Hense, R., Greatbatch, R. J., Hense, A., Illing, S., Köhl, A.,
Kröger, J., Müller, W. A., Pankatz, K., and Stammer, D.:
Initialization and Ensemble Generation for Decadal Climate Predictions: A
Comparison of Different Methods, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 11, 149–172, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001439" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001439</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib118"><label>118</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L.
V., Rowell, D. P., Kent, E. C., and Kaplan, A.: Global analyses of sea
surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the
late nineteenth century, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4407,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002670" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002670</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib119"><label>119</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Revell, L. E., Stenke, A., Luo, B., Kremser, S., Rozanov, E., Sukhodolov, T., and Peter, T.: Impacts of Mt Pinatubo volcanic aerosol on the tropical stratosphere in chemistry–climate model simulations using CCMI and CMIP6 stratospheric aerosol data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13139–13150, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13139-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-13139-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib120"><label>120</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Reynolds, R. W., Rayner, N. A., Smith, T. M., Stokes, D. C., and Wang, W.:
An Improved In Situ and Satellite SST Analysis for Climate, J.
Climate, 15, 1609–1625, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015&lt;1609:AIISAS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015&lt;1609:AIISAS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib121"><label>121</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ricker, R., Hendricks, S., Kaleschke, L., Tian-Kunze, X., King, J., and Haas, C.: A weekly Arctic sea-ice thickness data record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS satellite data, The Cryosphere, 11, 1607–1623, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1607-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-11-1607-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib122"><label>122</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ringgaard, I. M., Yang, S., Kaas, E., and Christensen, J. H.: Barents-Kara
sea ice and European winters in EC-Earth, Clim. Dynam., 54, 3323–3338,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05174-w" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-020-05174-w</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib123"><label>123</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Robson, J., Sutton, R., Lohmann, K., Smith, D., and Palmer, M. D.: Causes of
the Rapid Warming of the Nort<?pagebreak page7115?>h Atlantic Ocean in the Mid-1990s, J.
Climate, 25, 4116–4134, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00443.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00443.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib124"><label>124</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sakov, P. and Oke, P. R.: A deterministic formulation of the ensemble Kalman
filter: an alternative to ensemble square root filters, Tellus A, 60,
361–371, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00299.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00299.x</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib125"><label>125</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sakov, P., Counillon, F., Bertino, L., Lisæter, K. A., Oke, P. R., and Korablev, A.: TOPAZ4: an ocean-sea ice data assimilation system for the North Atlantic and Arctic, Ocean Sci., 8, 633–656, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-8-633-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/os-8-633-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib126"><label>126</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sanchez-Gomez, E., Cassou, C., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Fernandez, E., and
Terray, L.: Drift dynamics in a coupled model initialized for decadal
forecasts, Clim. Dynam., 46, 1819–1840,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2678-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-015-2678-y</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib127"><label>127</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sandery, P. A., O'Kane, T. J., Kitsios, V., and Sakov, P.: Climate Model
State Estimation Using Variants of EnKF Coupled Data Assimilation, Mon.
Weather Rev., 148, 2411–2431, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0443.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-18-0443.1</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib128"><label>128</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Scaife, A. A. and Smith, S.: A signal-to-noise paradox in climate science,
npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 1, 1–28,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0038-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-018-0038-4</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib129"><label>129</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Séférian, R., Bopp, L., Gehlen, M., Swingedouw, D., Mignot, J.,
Guilyardi, E., and Servonnat, J.: Multiyear predictability of Tropical
marine productivity, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
11646–11651, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315855111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1315855111</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib130"><label>130</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Séférian, R., Berthet, S., and Chevallier, M.: Assessing the decadal
predictability of land and ocean carbon uptake, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 45, 2455–2466, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076092" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL076092</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib131"><label>131</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Seland, Ø. and Debernard, J. B.: Sensitivities of Arctic Seaice in
Climate Modelling, in: ACCESS Newsletter, 9, 10–13, available at:
<uri>http://www.access-eu.org/en/publications/access_newsletter.html</uri> (last access: 14 September 2019), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib132"><label>132</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib133"><label>133</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shen, M.-L., Keenlyside, N., Selten, F., Wiegerinck, W., and Duane, G. S.:
Dynamically combining climate models to “supermodel” the tropical Pacific,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 359–366,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066562" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL066562</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib134"><label>134</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Singh, T., Counillon, F., Tjiputra, J., and Gharamti, M.: Parameter estimation for ocean biogeochemical component in a global model using Ensemble Kalman Filter: a twin experiment, Front. Earth Sci., in review, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib135"><label>135</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smith, D., Eade, R., Scaife, A. A., Caron, L.-P., Danabasoglu, G., DelSole, T., Delworth, T., Doblas-Reyes, F., Dunstone, N., Hermanson, L., Kharin, V., Kimoto, M., Merryfield, W. J., Mochizuki, T., Müller, W. A. and Pohlmann, H., Yeager, S., and Yang, X.:
Robust skill of decadal climate predictions, Npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci., 2, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0071-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41612-019-0071-y</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib136"><label>136</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smith, D. M., Scaife, A. A., Eade, R., Athanasiadis, P., Bellucci, A., Bethke, I., Bilbao, R., Borchert, L., Caron, L.-P., Counillon, F., Danabasoglu, G., Delworth, T., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Dunstone, N. J., Estella-Perez, V., Flavoni, S., Hermanson, L., Keenlyside, N., Kharin, V., Kimoto, M., Merryfield, W. J., Mignot, J., Mochizuki, T., Modali, K., Monerie, P.-A., Müller, W. A., Nicolí, D., Ortega, P., Pankatz, K., Pohlmann, H., Robson, J., Ruggieri, P., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Swingedouw, D., Wang, Y., Wild, S., Yeager, S., Yang, X., and Zhang, L.:
North Atlantic climate far more predictable than models imply, Nature, 583,
796–800, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2525-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41586-020-2525-0</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib137"><label>137</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Smith, P. J., Fowler, A. M., and Lawless, A. S.: Exploring strategies for coupled 4D-Var data assimilation using an idealised atmosphere–ocean model, Tellus A, 67, 27025, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v67.27025, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib138"><label>138</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stammer, D., Wunsch, C., Giering, R., Eckert, C., Heimbach, P., Marotzke,
J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., and Marshall, J.: The Global ocean circulation
during 1992–1997, estimated from ocean observations and a general
circulation model, 107, 3118, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000888" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JC000888</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib139"><label>139</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Sluka, T. C., Penny, S. G., Kalnay, E., and Miyoshi, T.: Assimilating atmospheric observations into the ocean using strongly coupled ensemble data assimilation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 752–759, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067238, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib140"><label>140</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sun, J., Liu, Z., Lu, F., Zhang, W., and Zhang, S.: Strongly Coupled Data
Assimilation Using Leading Averaged Coupled Covariance (LACC). Part III:
Assimilation of Real World Reanalysis, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 2351–2364, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0304.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-19-0304.1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib141"><label>141</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sutton, R. T. and Hodson, D. L.: Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American
and European summer climate, Science, 309, 115–118,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109496" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1109496</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib142"><label>142</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Tardif, R., Hakim, G. J., and Snyder, C.: Coupled atmosphere–ocean data assimilation experiments with a low-order model and CMIP5 model data, Clim. Dynam., 45, 1415–1427, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2390-3, 2015</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib143"><label>143</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and
the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib144"><label>144</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thomason, L. W., Ernest, N., Millán, L., Rieger, L., Bourassa, A., Vernier, J.-P., Manney, G., Luo, B., Arfeuille, F., and Peter, T.: A global space-based stratospheric aerosol climatology: 1979–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 469–492, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-10-469-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib145"><label>145</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tjiputra, J. F., Polzin, D., and Winguth, A. M. E.: Assimilation of seasonal
chlorophyll and nutrient data into an adjoint three-dimensional ocean carbon
cycle model: Sensitivity analysis and ecosystem parameter optimization,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 21, GB1001,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002745" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GB002745</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib146"><label>146</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tjiputra, J. F., Roelandt, C., Bentsen, M., Lawrence, D. M., Lorentzen, T., Schwinger, J., Seland, Ø., and Heinze, C.: Evaluation of the carbon cycle components in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM), Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 301–325, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-301-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-301-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page7116?><ref id="bib1.bib147"><label>147</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tjiputra, J. F., Schwinger, J., Bentsen, M., Morée, A. L., Gao, S., Bethke, I., Heinze, C., Goris, N., Gupta, A., He, Y.-C., Olivié, D., Seland, Ø., and Schulz, M.: Ocean biogeochemistry in the Norwegian Earth System Model version 2 (NorESM2), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2393–2431, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2393-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-13-2393-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib148"><label>148</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Toniazzo, T. and Koseki, S.: A Methodology for Anomaly Coupling in Climate
Simulation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2061–2079,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001288" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001288</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib149"><label>149</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Verfaillie, D., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Donat, M. G., Pérez-Zanón, N.,
Solaraju-Murali, B., Torralba, V., and Wild, S.: How Reliable Are Decadal
Climate Predictions of Near-Surface Air Temperature?, J.  Climate,
34, 697–713, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0138.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0138.1</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib150"><label>150</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Counillon, F., and Bertino, L.: Alleviating the bias induced by
the linear analysis update with an isopycnal ocean model, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 1064–1074,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2709" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2709</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib151"><label>151</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Bethke, I., Keenlyside, N., Bocquet, M., and Shen,
M.-L.: Optimising assimilation of hydrographic profiles into isopycnal ocean
models with ensemble data assimilation, Ocean Modell., 114, 33–44,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.04.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.04.007</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib152"><label>152</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., Svendsen, L., Gleixner, S.,
Kimmritz, M., Dai, P., and Gao, Y.: Seasonal predictions initialised by
assimilating sea surface temperature observations with the EnKF, Clim.
Dynam., 53, 5777–5797, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04897-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-019-04897-9</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib153"><label>153</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>While, J., Haines, K., and Smith, G.: A nutrient increment method for
reducing bias in global biogeochemical models, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 115, C10036, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006142" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JC006142</ext-link>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib154"><label>154</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wilks, D.: On “Field Significance” and the False Discovery Rate, J.  Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 45, 1181–1189,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2404.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAM2404.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib155"><label>155</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wilks, D.: “The stippling shows statistically significant grid points”:
How research results are routinely overstated and overinterpreted, and what
to do about it, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97,
2263–2273, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib156"><label>156</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yeager, S. and Robson, J.: Recent progress in understanding and predicting
Atlantic decadal climate variability, Current Climate Change Reports, 3,
112–127, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0064-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s40641-017-0064-z</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib157"><label>157</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yeager, S. G., Danabasoglu, G., Rosenbloom, N. A., Strand, W., Bates, S. C., Meehl, G. A., Karspeck, A. R., Lindsay, K., Long, M. C., Teng, H., and Lovenduski, N. S.:  Predicting
near-term changes in the Earth System: A large ensemble of initialized
decadal prediction simulations using the Community Earth System Model,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1867–1886,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0098.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0098.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib158"><label>158</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, S., Harrison, M. J., Rosati, A., and Wittenberg, A.: System Design
and Evaluation of Coupled Ensemble Data Assimilation for Global Oceanic
Climate Studies, Mon. Weather Rev., 135, 3541–3564,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3466.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR3466.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib159"><label>159</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Sutton, R., Danabasoglu, G., Kwon, Y.-O., Marsh, R., Yeager, S.
G., Amrhein, D. E., and Little, C. M.: A Review of the Role of the Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation in Atlantic Multidecadal Variability and
Associated Climate Impacts, Rev. Geophys., 57, 316–375,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000644" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019RG000644</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6 DCPP</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Athanasiadis, P. J., Yeager, S., Kwon, Y.-O., Bellucci, A., Smith, D. W.,
and Tibaldi, S.: Decadal predictability of North Atlantic blocking and the
NAO, NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 1–10,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0120-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0120-6</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Årthun, M., Kolstad, E. W., Eldevik, T., and Keenlyside, N. S.: Time
Scales and Sources of European Temperature Variability, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 45, 3597–3604,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GL077401" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GL077401</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation> Assmann, K. M., Bentsen, M., Segschneider, J., and Heinze, C.: An isopycnic ocean carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 143–167, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-143-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-143-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical
weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bellucci, A., Haarsma, R., Bellouin, N., Booth, B., Cagnazzo, C., van den
Hurk, B., Keenlyside, N., Koenigk, T., Massonnet, F., Materia, S., and
Weiss, M.: Advancements in decadal climate predictability: The role of
nonoceanic drivers, Rev. Geophys., 53, 165–202,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000473" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000473</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bethke, I.: NorCPM1-CMIP6-1.0.0 – The CMIP6 DCPP version of the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model, Norstore [code], <a href="https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00014</a>, 2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bethke, I.: NorCPM1 input data for CMIP6 DCPP simulations, Norstore [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.11582/2021.00013</a>, 2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Bethke, I., Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Kimmritz, M., Fransner, F., Samuelsen,
A., Langehaug, H. R., Chiu, P.-G., Bentsen, M., Guo, C., Tjiputra, J.,
Kirkevåg, A., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Y., Fan, Y., Lawrence, P.,
Eldevik, T., and Keenlyside, N.: NCC NorCPM1 model output prepared for CMIP6
CMIP,   Norstore [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10843" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10843</a>, 2019a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Bethke, I., Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Kimmritz, M., Fransner, F., Samuelsen,
A., Langehaug, H. R., Chiu, P.-G., Bentsen, M., Guo, C., Tjiputra, J.,
Kirkevåg, A., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Y., Fan, Y., Lawrence, P.,
Eldevik, T., and Keenlyside, N.: NCC NorCPM1 model output prepared for CMIP6
DCPP, Norstore [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10844" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10844</a>, 2019b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Billeau, S., Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., and Bertino, L.: Impact of
changing the assimilation cycle: centered vs. staggered, snapshot vs monthly
averaged, NERSC technical report 400, Nansen Environmental and Remote
Sensing Center, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Bitz, C. M., Shell, K. M., Gent, P. R., Bailey, D. A., Danabasoglu, G.,
Armour, K. C.,  Holland, M. M., and  Kiehl, J. T.: Climate Sensitivity of the
Community Climate System Model, Version 4, J. Climate, 25, 3053–3070,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00290.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00290.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Bleck, R. and Smith, L. T.: A wind-driven isopycnic coordinate model of the north and equatorial Atlantic Ocean: 1. Model development and supporting experiments, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 95, 3273–3285, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC03p03273, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Bleck, R., Rooth, C., Hu, D., and Smith, L. T.: Salinity-driven Thermocline Transients in a Wind- and Thermohaline-forced Isopycnic Coordinate Model of the North Atlantic, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 22, 1486–1505, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1992)022&lt;1486:SDTTIA&gt;2.0.CO;2, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Boer, G. J., Smith, D. M., Cassou, C., Doblas-Reyes, F., Danabasoglu, G., Kirtman, B., Kushnir, Y., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G. A., Msadek, R., Mueller, W. A., Taylor, K. E., Zwiers, F., Rixen, M., Ruprich-Robert, Y., and Eade, R.: The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3751–3777, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Böning, C. W., Scheinert, M., Dengg, J., Biastoch, A., and Funk, A.:
Decadal variability of subpolar gyre transport and its reverberation in the
North Atlantic overturning, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L21S01,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026906" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026906</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Borchert, L. F., Menary, M. B., Swingedouw, D., Sgubin, G., Hermanson, L.,
and Mignot, J.: Improved Decadal Predictions of North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre
SST in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL091307,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091307" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091307</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Branstator, G. and Teng, H.: Two Limits of Initial-Value Decadal
Predictability in a CGCM, J. Climate, 23, 6292–6311,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3678.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3678.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Branstator, G., Teng, H., Meehl, G. A., Kimoto, M., Knight, J. R., Latif,
M., and Rosati, A.: Systematic Estimates of Initial-Value Decadal
Predictability for Six AOGCMs, J. Climate, 25, 1827–1846,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00227.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00227.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Brune, S., Nerger, L., and Baehr, J.: Assimilation of oceanic observations
in a global coupled Earth system model with the SEIK filter, Ocean
Modell., 96, 254–264, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.09.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.09.011</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Cassou, C., Kushnir, Y., Hawkins, E., Pirani, A., Kucharski, F., Kang,
I.-S., and Caltabiano, N.: Decadal Climate Variability and Predictability:
Challenges and Opportunities, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 99, 479–490, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0286.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0286.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Checa-Garcia, R., Hegglin, M. I., Kinnison, D., Plummer, D. A., and Shine,
K. P.: Historical tropospheric and stratospheric ozone radiative forcing
using the CMIP6 database, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 3264–3273,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076770" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076770</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Chikamoto, Y., Timmermann, A., Widlansky, M. J., Zhang, S., and Balmaseda,
M. A.: A Drift-Free Decadal Climate Prediction System for the Community
Earth System Model, J. Climate, 32, 5967–5995,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0788.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0788.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Collins, M., Botzet, M., Carril, A. F., Drange, H., Jouzeau, A., Latif, M.,
Masina, S., Otteraa, O. H., Pohlmann, H., Sorteberg, A., Sutton, R., and
Terray, L.: Interannual to Decadal Climate Predictability in the North
Atlantic: A Multimodel-Ensemble Study, J. Climate, 19, 1195–1203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3654.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3654.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Counillon, F., Bethke, I., Keenlyside, N., Bentsen, M., Bertino, L., and
Zheng, F.: Seasonal-to-decadal predictions with the ensemble Kalman filter
and the Norwegian Earth System Model: a twin experiment, Tellus A, 66,
1–21, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.21074" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.21074</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., Bethke, I., Wang, Y., Billeau, S., Shen, M.
L., and Bentsen, M.: Flow-dependent assimilation of sea surface temperature
in isopycnal coordinates with the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model, Tellus
A, 68, 1–17, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v68.32437" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v68.32437</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., Toniazzo, T., Koseki, S., Demissie, T.,
Bethke, I., and Wang, Y.: Relating model bias and prediction skill in the
equatorial Atlantic, Clim. Dynam.,  56, 2617–2630,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05605-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05605-8</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Dai, P., Gao, Y., Counillon, F., Wang, Y., Kimmritz, M., and Langehaug, H.
R.: Seasonal to decadal predictions of regional Arctic sea ice by
assimilating sea surface temperature in the Norwegian Climate Prediction
Model, Clim. Dynam., 54, 3863–3878, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05196-4, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Danabasoglu, G., Yeager, S., Bailey, D., Behrens, E., Bentsen, M., Bi, D.,
Biastoch, A., Böning, C., Bozec, A., M. Canuto, V., Cassou, C.,
Chassignet, E., Coward, A., Danilov, S., Diansky, N., Drange, H., Farneti,
R., Fernandez, E., Fogli, P. G., and Wang, Q.: North Atlantic simulations in
Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part I: Mean
states, Ocean Modell., 73, 76-107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Day, J. J., Tietsche, S., and Hawkins, E.: Pan-Arctic and Regional Sea Ice
Predictability: Initialization Month Dependence, J. Climate, 27,
4371–4390, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00614.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00614.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Deser, C., Tomas, R., Alexander, M., and Lawrence, D.: The Seasonal
Atmospheric Response to Projected Arctic Sea Ice Loss in the Late
Twenty-First Century, J. Climate, 23, 333–351,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3053.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3053.1</a>, 2010. </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Dong, B. and Sutton, R.: Dominant role of greenhouse-gas forcing in the
recovery of Sahel rainfall, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 757–760,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2664" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2664</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Eden, C. and Jung, T.: North Atlantic Interdecadal Variability: Oceanic
Response to the North Atlantic Oscillation (1865–1997), J. Climate,
14, 676–691, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;0676:NAIVOR&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;0676:NAIVOR&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Enfield, D. B., Mestas-Nuñez, A. M., and Trimble, P. J.: The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2077–2080, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012745" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012745</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Eden, C. and Willebrand, J.: Mechanism of Interannual to Decadal Variability
of the North Atlantic Circulation, J. Climate, 14, 2266–2280,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2266:MOITDV&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2266:MOITDV&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Evensen, G.: The Ensemble Kalman Filter: theoretical formulation and
practical implementation, Ocean Dynam., 53, 343–367,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-003-0036-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-003-0036-9</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation> Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Fransner, F., Counillon, F., Bethke, I., Tjiputra, J., Samuelsen, A.,
Nummelin, A., and Olsen, A.: Ocean Biogeochemical
Predictions – Initialization and Limits of Predictability, Front. Mar. Sci.,
7, 386, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00386" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00386</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Frigstad, H., Andersen, T., Bellerby, R. G., Silyakova, A., and Hessen, D.
O.: Variation in the seston C:N ratio of the Arctic Ocean and pan-Arctic
shelves, J. Marine Syst., 129, 214–223,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.004</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Frölicher, T. L., Ramseyer, L., Raible, C. C., Rodgers, K. B., and Dunne, J.: Potential predictability of marine ecosystem drivers, Biogeosciences, 17, 2061–2083, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2061-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2061-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Garnesson, P., Mangin, A., Fanton d'Andon, O., Demaria, J., and Bretagnon, M.: The CMEMS GlobColour chlorophyll a product based on satellite observation: multi-sensor merging and flagging strategies, Ocean Sci., 15, 819–830, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-819-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-819-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Gaspari, G. and Cohn, S. E.: Construction of correlation functions in two
and three dimensions, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 723–757,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555417" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555417</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Gharamti, M., Tjiputra, J., Bethke, I., Samuelsen, A., Skjelvan, I.,
Bentsen, M., and Bertino, L.: Ensemble data assimilation for ocean
biogeochemical state and parameter estimation at different sites, Ocean
Modell., 112, 65–89,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.02.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.02.006</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Gidden, M. J., Riahi, K., Smith, S. J., Fujimori, S., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D. P., van den Berg, M., Feng, L., Klein, D., Calvin, K., Doelman, J. C., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Hilaire, J., Hoesly, R., Horing, J., Popp, A., Stehfest, E., and Takahashi, K.: Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1443–1475, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Goddard, L., Kumar, A., Solomon, A., Smith, D., Boer, G., Gonzalez, P., Kharin, V., Merryfield, W., Deser, C., Mason, S. J., Kirtman, B. P., Msadek, R., Sutton, R., Hawkings, E., Fricker, T., Hegerl, G., Ferro, C. A. T., Stephenson, D. B., Meehl, G. A., Stockdale, T., Burgman, R., Greene, A. M., Kushnir, Y., Newman, M., Carton, J., Fukumori, I., and Delworth, T.:  A verification
framework for interannual-to-decadal predictions experiments, Clim.
Dynam., 40, 245–272, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1481-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1481-2</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Good, S., Martin, M. J., and Rayner, N.: EN4: Quality controlled ocean
temperature and salinity profiles and monthly objective analyses with
uncertainty estimates, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 118,
6704–6716, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009067" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009067</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Gouretski, V. and Reseghetti, F.: On depth and temperature biases in
bathythermograph data: Development of a new correction scheme based on
analysis of a global ocean database, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I, 57, 812–833, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.03.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.03.011</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Graff, L. S., Iversen, T., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Kirkevåg, A., Li, C., and Olivié, D. J. L.: Arctic amplification under global warming of 1.5 and 2&thinsp;°C in NorESM1-Happi, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 569–598, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-569-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-569-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Guemas, V., Chevallier, M., Déqué, M., Bellprat, O., and
Doblas-Reyes, F.: Impact of sea ice initialization on sea ice and atmosphere
prediction skill on seasonal timescales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
3889–3896, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066626" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066626</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Häkkinen, S. and Rhines, P. B.: Decline of Subpolar North Atlantic
Circulation During the 1990s, Science, 304, 555–559,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094917" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094917</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU
TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset, Sci.
Data, 7, 1–18, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Hátún, H., Sandø, A. B., Drange, H., Hansen, B., and Valdimarsson, H.: Influence of the Atlantic Subpolar Gyre on the Thermohaline Circulation, Science, 309, 1841–1844, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114777, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Hátún, H., Lohmann, K., Matei, D., Jungclaus, J., Pacariz, S.,
Bersch, M., Gislason, A., Ólafsson, J., and Reid, P.: An inflated
subpolar gyre blows life toward the northeastern Atlantic, Prog.
Oceanogr., 147, 49–66,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.07.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.07.009</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Hegglin, M., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J.-F., and Plummer, D.: CCMI ozone in
support of CMIP6 – version 1.0. Versions 20160830 (preindustrial), 20160711
(historical), 20181101 (ssp2-45), Earth System Grid Federation [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Hendricks, S., Paul, S., and Rinne, E.: ESA Sea Ice Climate Change
Initiative (Sea_Ice_cci): Northern hemisphere
sea ice thickness from the CryoSat-2 satellite on a monthly grid (L3C),
v2.0,  CEDA [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5285/ff79d140824f42dd92b204b4f1e9e7c2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5285/ff79d140824f42dd92b204b4f1e9e7c2</a>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Hendricks, S., Paul, S., and Rinne, E.: ESA Sea Ice Climate Change
Initiative (Sea_Ice_cci): Northern hemisphere
sea ice thickness from the Envisat satellite on a monthly grid (L3C), v2.0,  CEDA [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5285/f4c34f4f0f1d4d0da06d771f6972f180" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5285/f4c34f4f0f1d4d0da06d771f6972f180</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.:  The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Huang, B., Thorne, P. W., Banzon, V. F., Boyer, T., Chepurin, G., Lawrimore,
J. H., Menne, M. J., Smith, T. M., Vose, R. S., and Zhang, H.-M.: Extended
reconstructed sea surface temperature, version 5 (ERSSTv5): upgrades,
validations, and intercomparisons, J. Climate, 30, 8179–8205,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Hoesly, R. M., Smith, S. J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Pitkanen, T., Seibert, J. J., Vu, L., Andres, R. J., Bolt, R. M., Bond, T. C., Dawidowski, L., Kholod, N., Kurokawa, J.-I., Li, M., Liu, L., Lu, Z., Moura, M. C. P., O'Rourke, P. R., and Zhang, Q.: Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 369–408, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Houtekamer, P. L. and Mitchell, H. L.: Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble
Kalman Filter Technique, Mon. Weather Rev., 126, 796–811,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126&lt;0796:DAUAEK&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126&lt;0796:DAUAEK&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic–Viscous–Plastic Model for Sea
Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027&lt;1849:AEVPMF&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Hurrell, J. W., Holland, M. M., Gent, P. R., Ghan, S., Kay, J. E., Kushner,
P. J., Lamarque, J., Large, W. G., Lawrence, D., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H.,
Long, M. C., Mahowald, N., Marsh, D. R., Neale, R. B., Rasch, P., Vavrus, S.,
Vertenstein, M., Bader, D., Collins, W. D., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J., and
Marshall, S.: The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for
Collaborative Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 1339–1360,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Ilyina, T., Li, H., Spring, A., Müller, W. A., Bopp, L., Chikamoto, M.
O., Danabasoglu, G., Dobrynn in, M., Dunne, J., Fransner, F.,
Friedlingstein, P., Lee, W., Lovenduski, N. S., Merryfield, W., Mignot, J.,
Park, J., Séférian, R., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Watanabe, M., and
Yeager, S.: Predictable variations of the carbon sinks and atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>
growth in a multi-model framework, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090695,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090695" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090695</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation> Iversen, T., Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Kristjansson, J. E., Medhaug, I., Sand, M., and Seierstad, I. A.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 2: Climate response and scenario projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 389–415, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-389-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-389-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Johns, W. E., Baringer, M. O., Beal, L. M., Cunningham, S. A., Kanzow, T.,
Bryden, H. L., Hirschi, J. J. M., Marotzke, J., Meinen, C. S., Shaw, B., and
Curry, R.: Continuous, Array-Based Estimates of Atlantic Ocean Heat
Transport at 26.5° N, J. Climate, 24, 2429–2449,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3997.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3997.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., and Joseph, D.:  The NCEP/NCAR 40-year
reanalysis project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77,
437–472, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Karspeck, A. R., Yeager, S., Danabasoglu, G., Hoar, T., Collins, N., Raeder,
K., Anderson, J., and Tribbia, J.: An ensemble adjustment kalman filter for
the CCSM4 ocean component, J. Climate, 26, 7392–7413,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00402.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00402.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Karspeck, A. R., Stammer, D., Köhl, A., Danabasoglu, G.,
Balmaseda, M., Smith, D. M., Fujii, Y., Zhang, S., Giese, B., Tsujino, H.,
and Rosati, A.: Comparison of the Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation between 1960 and 2007 in six ocean reanalysis products, Clim.
Dynam., 49, 957–982, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2787-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2787-7</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Keenlyside, N., Latif, M., Jungclaus, J., Kornblueh, L., and Roeckner, E.:
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector,
Nature, 453, 84–88, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06921" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06921</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Keenlyside, N. S. and Ba, J.: Prospects for decadal climate prediction,
WIREs Clim. Change, 1, 627–635,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.69" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.69</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Keenlyside, N. S., Ba, J., Mecking, J., Omrani, N.-E., Latif, M., Zhang, R.,
and Msadek, R.: North Atlantic Multi-Decadal Variability  –  Mechanisms and
Predictability, chap. 9, 141–157,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579933_0009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814579933_0009</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Kimmritz, M., Counillon, F., Bitz, C., Massonnet, F., Bethke, I., and Gao,
Y.: Optimising assimilation of sea ice concentration in an Earth system
model with a multicategory sea ice model, Tellus A, 70, 1435945, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2018.1435945" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2018.1435945</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Kimmritz, M., Counillon, F., Smedsrud, L., Bethke, I., Keenlyside, N.,
Ogawa, F., and Wang, Y.: Impact of Ocean and Sea Ice Initialisation On
Seasonal Prediction Skill in the Arctic, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 11, 4147–4166, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001825" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001825</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Kirkevåg, A., Iversen, T., Seland, Ø., Hoose, C., Kristjánsson, J. E., Struthers, H., Ekman, A. M. L., Ghan, S., Griesfeller, J., Nilsson, E. D., and Schulz, M.: Aerosol–climate interactions in the Norwegian Earth System Model – NorESM1-M, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 207–244, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-207-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-207-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Kirtman, B., Power, S., Adedoyin, J., Boer, G., Bojariu, R., Camilloni, I.,
Doblas-Reyes, F., Fiore, A., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G., Prather, M., Sarr, A.,
Schär, C., Sutton, R., van Oldenborgh, G., Vecchi, G., and Wang, H.:
Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability, book section 11,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 953–1028, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.023</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Klavans, J. M., Cane, M. A., Clement, A. C., and Murphy, L. N.: NAO
predictability from external forcing in the late 20th century, npj Clim.
Atmos. Sci., 4, 1–8,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00177-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00177-8</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Koul, V., Tesdal, J.-E., Bersch, M., Hátún, H., Brune, S., Borchert,
L., Haak, H., Schrum, C., and Baehr, J.: Unraveling the choice of the north
Atlantic subpolar gyre index, Sci. Rep., 10, 1–12, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Krumhardt, K. M., Lovenduski, N. S., Long, M. C., Luo, J. Y., Lindsay, K.,
Yeager, S., and Harrison, C.: Potential Predictability of Net Primary
Production in the Ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 34, e2020GB006531,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GB006531" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GB006531</a>, 2020. </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>: Kushnir, Y., Scaife, A. A., Arritt, R., Balsamo, G., Boer, G., Doblas-Reyes, F., Hawkins, E., Kimoto, M., Kolli, R. K., Kumar, A., Matei, D., Matthes, K., Müller, O’Kane, W. T., Perlwitz, J., Power, S., Raphael, M., Shimpo, A., Smith, D., Tuma, M., and Wu, B.:  Towards
operational predictions of the near-term climate, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
94–101, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0359-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0359-7</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Laloyaux, P., Balmaseda, M., Dee, D., Mogensen, K., and Janssen, P.: A
coupled data assimilation system for climate reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 142, 65–78, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2629" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2629</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Laloyaux, P., de Boisseson, E., Balmaseda, M., Bidlot, J.-R., Broennimann,
S., Buizza, R., Dalhgren, P., Dee, D., Haimberger, L., Hersbach, H., Kosaka,
Y., Martin, M., Poli, P., Rayner, N., Rustemeier, E., and Schepers, D.:
CERA-20C: A Coupled Reanalysis of the Twentieth Century, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1172–1195,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001273" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001273</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Landschützer, P., Bushinsky, S., and Gray, A. R.: A combined globally
mapped CO2 flux estimate based on the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas Database
(SOCAT) and Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling
(SOCCOM) biogeochemistry floats from 1982 to 2017 (NCEI Accession 0191304),
Version 1.1, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set],
<a href="https://doi.org/10.25921/9hsn-xq82" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.25921/9hsn-xq82</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Larnicol, G., Guinehut, S., Rio, M. H., Drévillon, M., Faugere, Y., and
Nicolas, G.: The Global Observed Ocean Products of the French Mercator
Project, ESA Special Publication, 614, ISBN:92-9092-925-1,  2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>Latif, M. and Keenlyside, N. S.: A perspective on decadal climate
variability and predictability, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 58, 1880–1894,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.066" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.066</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>Lawrence, D. M., Hurtt, G. C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Calvin, K. V., Jones, A. D., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, P. J., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Pongratz, J., Seneviratne, S. I., and Shevliakova, E.: The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2973–2998, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>Lawrence, D. M., Oleson, K. W., Flanner, M. G., Thornton, P. E., Swenson, S.
C., Lawrence, P. J., Zeng, X., Yang, Z.-L., Levis, S., Sakaguchi, K., Bonan,
G. B., and Slater, A. G.: Parameterization improvements and functional and
structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 3, M03001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS00045</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>Levitus, S., Burgett, R., and Boyer, T.: World Ocean Atlas 1994, vol. 3,
Salinity, U.S. Dep. of Commer., Washington, DC, 1994a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>Levitus, S., Burgett, R., and Boyer, T.: World Ocean Atlas 1994, vol. 4,
Temperature, U.S. Dep. of Commer., Washington, DC, 1994b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>Li, H., Ilyina, T., Müller, W. A., and Sienz, F.: Decadal predictions of
the North Atlantic CO<sub>2</sub> uptake, Nat. Commun., 7, 11076 EP,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11076" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11076</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>Li, H., Ilyina, T., Müller, W. A., and Landschützer, P.: Predicting
the variable ocean carbon sink, Sci. Adv., 5, eaav6471,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav6471" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav6471</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Liguori, G., McGregor, S., Arblaster, J. M., Singh, M. S., and Meehl, G. A.: A joint role for forced and internally-driven variability in the decadal modulation of global warming, Nat. Commun., 11, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17683-7, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>
Lisæter, K. A., Rosanova, J., and Evensen, G.: Assimilation of ice concentration in a coupled ice–ocean model, using the Ensemble Kalman filter, Ocean Dynam., 53, 368–388, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-003-0049-4, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>Lohmann, K., Drange, H., and Bentsen, M.: A possible mechanism for the
strong weakening of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre in the mid-1990s,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15602, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039166" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039166</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Lovenduski, N. S., Yeager, S. G., Lindsay, K., and Long, M. C.: Predicting near-term variability in ocean carbon uptake, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 45–57, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-45-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-45-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>Lu, F., Liu, Z., Zhang, S., and Liu, Y.: Strongly Coupled Data Assimilation
Using Leading Averaged Coupled Covariance (LACC). Part I: Simple Model
Study, Mon. Weather Rev., 143, 3823–3837,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00322.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00322.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>Lu, Z., Fu, Z., Hua, L., Yuan, N., and Chen, L.: Evaluation of ENSO
simulations in CMIP5 models: A new perspective based on percolation phase
transition in complex networks, Sci. Rep., 8, 1–13,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33340-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33340-y</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>Maier-Reimer, E., Kriest, I., Segschneider, J., and Wetzel, P.: The HAMburg
Ocean Carbon Cycle model HAMOCC 5.1 – Technical description release 1.1,
Reports on Earth System Science 14, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology,
Hamburg, Germany, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Mariotti, A., Ruti, P. M., and Rixen, M.: Progress in subseasonal to seasonal prediction through a joint weather and climate community effort, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 1, 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0014-z, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
Massonnet, F., Fichefet, T., and Goosse, H.: Prospects for improved seasonal Arctic sea ice predictions from multivariate data assimilation, Ocean Modell., 88, 16–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.12.013, 2015
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>Matthes, K., Funke, B., Andersson, M. E., Barnard, L., Beer, J., Charbonneau, P., Clilverd, M. A., Dudok de Wit, T., Haberreiter, M., Hendry, A., Jackman, C. H., Kretzschmar, M., Kruschke, T., Kunze, M., Langematz, U., Marsh, D. R., Maycock, A. C., Misios, S., Rodger, C. J., Scaife, A. A., Seppälä, A., Shangguan, M., Sinnhuber, M., Tourpali, K., Usoskin, I., van de Kamp, M., Verronen, P. T., and Versick, S.: Solar forcing for CMIP6 (v3.2), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2247–2302, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>Medhaug, I., Stolpe, M. B., Fischer, E. M., and Knutti, R.: Reconciling
controversies about the “global warming hiatus”, Nature, 545, 41–47,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22315" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22315</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>Meehl, G. A., Goddard, L., Murphy, J., Stouffer, R. J., Boer, G.,
Danabasoglu, G., Dixon, K., Giorgetta, M. A., Greene, A. M., Hawkins, E.,
Hegerl, G., Karoly, D., Keenlyside, N., Kimoto, M., Kirtman, B., Navarra,
A., Pulwarty, R., Smith, D., Stammer, D., and Stockdale, T.: Decadal
Prediction: Can It Be Skillful?, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 90, 1467–1486, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2778.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2778.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>Meehl, G. A., Goddard, L., Boer, G., Burgman, R., Branstator, G., Cassou,
C., Corti, S., Danabasoglu, G., Doblas-Reyes, F., Hawkins, E., Karspeck, A.,
Kimoto, M., Kumar, A., Matei, D., Mignot, J., Msadek, R., Navarra, A.,
Pohlmann, H., Rienecker, M., Rosati, T., Schneider, E., Smith, D., Sutton,
R., Teng, H., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Vecchi, G., and Yeager, S.: Decadal
Climate Prediction: An Update from the Trenches, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 95, 243–267,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00241.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00241.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>Meehl, G. A., Richter, J. H., Teng, H., Capotondi, A., Cobb, K., Doblas-Reyes, F., Donat, M. G., England, M. H., Fyfe, J. C., Han, W., Kim, H., Kirtman, B. P., Kushnir, Y., Lovenduski, N. S., Mann, M. E., Merryfield, W. J., Nieves, V., Kathy, P., Rosenbloom, N., Sanchez, S. C., Scaife, A. A., Smith, D., Subramanian, A. C., Sun, L., Thompson, D., Ummenhofer, C. C., and Xie, S.-P.: Initialized Earth System prediction from subseasonal to decadal
timescales, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 2, 340–357, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>Meinen, C. S. and McPhaden, M. J.: Observations of Warm Water Volume Changes
in the Equatorial Pacific and Their Relationship to El Niño and La
Niña, J. Climate, 13, 3551–3559,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013&lt;3551:OOWWVC&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013&lt;3551:OOWWVC&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation>Meinshausen, M., Vogel, E., Nauels, A., Lorbacher, K., Meinshausen, N., Etheridge, D. M., Fraser, P. J., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Trudinger, C. M., Krummel, P. B., Beyerle, U., Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., Enting, I. G., Law, R. M., Lunder, C. R., O'Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Reimann, S., Rubino, M., Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., Wang, R. H. J., and Weiss, R.: Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2057–2116, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib107"><label>107</label><mixed-citation>Mochizuki, T., Ishii, M., Kimoto, M., Chikamoto, Y., Watanabe, M., Nozawa,
T., Sakamoto, T. T., Shiogama, H., Awaji, T., Sugiura, N., Toyoda, T.,
Yasunaka, S., Tatebe, H., and Mori, M.: Pacific decadal oscillation
hindcasts relevant to near-term climate prediction, P.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 1833–1837,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906531107" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906531107</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib108"><label>108</label><mixed-citation>Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., and Jones, P. D.: Quantifying
uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of
observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 117, D08101, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib109"><label>109</label><mixed-citation>Msadek, R., Delworth, T. L., Rosati, A., Anderson, W., Vecchi, G., Chang,
Y.-S., Dixon, K., Gudgel, R. G., Stern, W., Wittenberg, A., Yang, X., Zeng,
F., Zhang, R., and Zhang, S.: Predicting a Decadal Shift in North Atlantic
Climate Variability Using the GFDL Forecast System, J. Climate, 27,
6472–6496, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00476.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00476.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib110"><label>110</label><mixed-citation>Natvik, L.-J. and Evensen, G.: Assimilation of ocean colour data into a
biochemical model of the North Atlantic: Part 2. Statistical analysis,
J. Marine Syst., 40-41, 155–169,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(03)00017-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(03)00017-4</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib111"><label>111</label><mixed-citation>Neale, B, R., Richter, J. H., Conley, A. J., Park, S., Lauritzen, P. H.,
Gettelman, A., Williamson, D. L., Rasch, P. J., Vavrus, S. J., Collins, W.
D, Taylor, M. A., Zhang, M., and Lin, S.-J.: Description of the NCAR
Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 4.0), NCAR TECHNICAL NOTE, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib112"><label>112</label><mixed-citation>Omrani, N.-E., Keenlyside, N. S., Bader, J., and Manzini, E.: Stratosphere
key for wintertime atmospheric response to warm Atlantic decadal conditions,
Clim. Dynam., 42, 649–663,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1860-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1860-3</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib113"><label>113</label><mixed-citation>Park, J.-Y., Stock, C. A., Yang, X., Dunne, J. P., Rosati, A., John, J., and
Zhang, S.: Modeling Global Ocean Biogeochemistry With Physical Data
Assimilation: A Pragmatic Solution to the Equatorial Instability, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 891–906,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001223" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001223</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib114"><label>114</label><mixed-citation>Park, J.-Y., Stock, C. A., Dunne, J. P., Yang, X., and Rosati, A.: Seasonal
to multiannual marine ecosystem prediction with a global Earth system model,
Science, 365, 284–288, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6634</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib115"><label>115</label><mixed-citation>Penny, S. G. and Hamill, T. M.: Coupled data assimilation for integrated earth system analysis and prediction, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, ES169–ES172, https://doi.org/10.2307/26243775, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib116"><label>116</label><mixed-citation>Penny, S. G., Bach, E., Bhargava, K., Chang, C.-C., Da, C., Sun, L., and
Yoshida, T.: Strongly Coupled Data Assimilation in Multiscale Media:
Experiments Using a Quasi-Geostrophic Coupled Model, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1803–1829,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001652" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001652</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib117"><label>117</label><mixed-citation>Polkova, I., Brune, S., Kadow, C., Romanova, V., Gollan, G., Baehr, J.,
Glowienka-Hense, R., Greatbatch, R. J., Hense, A., Illing, S., Köhl, A.,
Kröger, J., Müller, W. A., Pankatz, K., and Stammer, D.:
Initialization and Ensemble Generation for Decadal Climate Predictions: A
Comparison of Different Methods, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 11, 149–172, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001439" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001439</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib118"><label>118</label><mixed-citation>Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L.
V., Rowell, D. P., Kent, E. C., and Kaplan, A.: Global analyses of sea
surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the
late nineteenth century, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 4407,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002670" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002670</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib119"><label>119</label><mixed-citation>Revell, L. E., Stenke, A., Luo, B., Kremser, S., Rozanov, E., Sukhodolov, T., and Peter, T.: Impacts of Mt Pinatubo volcanic aerosol on the tropical stratosphere in chemistry–climate model simulations using CCMI and CMIP6 stratospheric aerosol data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13139–13150, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13139-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13139-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib120"><label>120</label><mixed-citation>Reynolds, R. W., Rayner, N. A., Smith, T. M., Stokes, D. C., and Wang, W.:
An Improved In Situ and Satellite SST Analysis for Climate, J.
Climate, 15, 1609–1625, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015&lt;1609:AIISAS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015&lt;1609:AIISAS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib121"><label>121</label><mixed-citation>Ricker, R., Hendricks, S., Kaleschke, L., Tian-Kunze, X., King, J., and Haas, C.: A weekly Arctic sea-ice thickness data record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS satellite data, The Cryosphere, 11, 1607–1623, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1607-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1607-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib122"><label>122</label><mixed-citation>Ringgaard, I. M., Yang, S., Kaas, E., and Christensen, J. H.: Barents-Kara
sea ice and European winters in EC-Earth, Clim. Dynam., 54, 3323–3338,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05174-w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05174-w</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib123"><label>123</label><mixed-citation>Robson, J., Sutton, R., Lohmann, K., Smith, D., and Palmer, M. D.: Causes of
the Rapid Warming of the North Atlantic Ocean in the Mid-1990s, J.
Climate, 25, 4116–4134, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00443.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00443.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib124"><label>124</label><mixed-citation>Sakov, P. and Oke, P. R.: A deterministic formulation of the ensemble Kalman
filter: an alternative to ensemble square root filters, Tellus A, 60,
361–371, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00299.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00299.x</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib125"><label>125</label><mixed-citation>Sakov, P., Counillon, F., Bertino, L., Lisæter, K. A., Oke, P. R., and Korablev, A.: TOPAZ4: an ocean-sea ice data assimilation system for the North Atlantic and Arctic, Ocean Sci., 8, 633–656, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-8-633-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/os-8-633-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib126"><label>126</label><mixed-citation>Sanchez-Gomez, E., Cassou, C., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Fernandez, E., and
Terray, L.: Drift dynamics in a coupled model initialized for decadal
forecasts, Clim. Dynam., 46, 1819–1840,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2678-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2678-y</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib127"><label>127</label><mixed-citation>Sandery, P. A., O'Kane, T. J., Kitsios, V., and Sakov, P.: Climate Model
State Estimation Using Variants of EnKF Coupled Data Assimilation, Mon.
Weather Rev., 148, 2411–2431, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0443.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0443.1</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib128"><label>128</label><mixed-citation>Scaife, A. A. and Smith, S.: A signal-to-noise paradox in climate science,
npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 1, 1–28,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0038-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0038-4</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib129"><label>129</label><mixed-citation>Séférian, R., Bopp, L., Gehlen, M., Swingedouw, D., Mignot, J.,
Guilyardi, E., and Servonnat, J.: Multiyear predictability of Tropical
marine productivity, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
11646–11651, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315855111" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315855111</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib130"><label>130</label><mixed-citation>Séférian, R., Berthet, S., and Chevallier, M.: Assessing the decadal
predictability of land and ocean carbon uptake, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 45, 2455–2466, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076092" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076092</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib131"><label>131</label><mixed-citation>Seland, Ø. and Debernard, J. B.: Sensitivities of Arctic Seaice in
Climate Modelling, in: ACCESS Newsletter, 9, 10–13, available at:
<a href="http://www.access-eu.org/en/publications/access_newsletter.html" target="_blank"/> (last access: 14 September 2019), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib132"><label>132</label><mixed-citation>Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib133"><label>133</label><mixed-citation>Shen, M.-L., Keenlyside, N., Selten, F., Wiegerinck, W., and Duane, G. S.:
Dynamically combining climate models to “supermodel” the tropical Pacific,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 359–366,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066562" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066562</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib134"><label>134</label><mixed-citation>Singh, T., Counillon, F., Tjiputra, J., and Gharamti, M.: Parameter estimation for ocean biogeochemical component in a global model using Ensemble Kalman Filter: a twin experiment, Front. Earth Sci., in review, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib135"><label>135</label><mixed-citation>Smith, D., Eade, R., Scaife, A. A., Caron, L.-P., Danabasoglu, G., DelSole, T., Delworth, T., Doblas-Reyes, F., Dunstone, N., Hermanson, L., Kharin, V., Kimoto, M., Merryfield, W. J., Mochizuki, T., Müller, W. A. and Pohlmann, H., Yeager, S., and Yang, X.:
Robust skill of decadal climate predictions, Npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci., 2, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0071-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0071-y</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib136"><label>136</label><mixed-citation>Smith, D. M., Scaife, A. A., Eade, R., Athanasiadis, P., Bellucci, A., Bethke, I., Bilbao, R., Borchert, L., Caron, L.-P., Counillon, F., Danabasoglu, G., Delworth, T., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Dunstone, N. J., Estella-Perez, V., Flavoni, S., Hermanson, L., Keenlyside, N., Kharin, V., Kimoto, M., Merryfield, W. J., Mignot, J., Mochizuki, T., Modali, K., Monerie, P.-A., Müller, W. A., Nicolí, D., Ortega, P., Pankatz, K., Pohlmann, H., Robson, J., Ruggieri, P., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Swingedouw, D., Wang, Y., Wild, S., Yeager, S., Yang, X., and Zhang, L.:
North Atlantic climate far more predictable than models imply, Nature, 583,
796–800, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2525-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2525-0</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib137"><label>137</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, P. J., Fowler, A. M., and Lawless, A. S.: Exploring strategies for coupled 4D-Var data assimilation using an idealised atmosphere–ocean model, Tellus A, 67, 27025, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v67.27025, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib138"><label>138</label><mixed-citation>Stammer, D., Wunsch, C., Giering, R., Eckert, C., Heimbach, P., Marotzke,
J., Adcroft, A., Hill, C., and Marshall, J.: The Global ocean circulation
during 1992–1997, estimated from ocean observations and a general
circulation model, 107, 3118, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000888" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000888</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib139"><label>139</label><mixed-citation>
Sluka, T. C., Penny, S. G., Kalnay, E., and Miyoshi, T.: Assimilating atmospheric observations into the ocean using strongly coupled ensemble data assimilation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 752–759, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067238, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib140"><label>140</label><mixed-citation>Sun, J., Liu, Z., Lu, F., Zhang, W., and Zhang, S.: Strongly Coupled Data
Assimilation Using Leading Averaged Coupled Covariance (LACC). Part III:
Assimilation of Real World Reanalysis, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 2351–2364, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0304.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0304.1</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib141"><label>141</label><mixed-citation>Sutton, R. T. and Hodson, D. L.: Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American
and European summer climate, Science, 309, 115–118,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109496" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109496</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib142"><label>142</label><mixed-citation>
Tardif, R., Hakim, G. J., and Snyder, C.: Coupled atmosphere–ocean data assimilation experiments with a low-order model and CMIP5 model data, Clim. Dynam., 45, 1415–1427, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2390-3, 2015
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib143"><label>143</label><mixed-citation>Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and
the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib144"><label>144</label><mixed-citation>
Thomason, L. W., Ernest, N., Millán, L., Rieger, L., Bourassa, A., Vernier, J.-P., Manney, G., Luo, B., Arfeuille, F., and Peter, T.: A global space-based stratospheric aerosol climatology: 1979–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 469–492, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-469-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib145"><label>145</label><mixed-citation>Tjiputra, J. F., Polzin, D., and Winguth, A. M. E.: Assimilation of seasonal
chlorophyll and nutrient data into an adjoint three-dimensional ocean carbon
cycle model: Sensitivity analysis and ecosystem parameter optimization,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 21, GB1001,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002745" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002745</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib146"><label>146</label><mixed-citation> Tjiputra, J. F., Roelandt, C., Bentsen, M., Lawrence, D. M., Lorentzen, T., Schwinger, J., Seland, Ø., and Heinze, C.: Evaluation of the carbon cycle components in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM), Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 301–325, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-301-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-301-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib147"><label>147</label><mixed-citation>Tjiputra, J. F., Schwinger, J., Bentsen, M., Morée, A. L., Gao, S., Bethke, I., Heinze, C., Goris, N., Gupta, A., He, Y.-C., Olivié, D., Seland, Ø., and Schulz, M.: Ocean biogeochemistry in the Norwegian Earth System Model version 2 (NorESM2), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2393–2431, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2393-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2393-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib148"><label>148</label><mixed-citation>Toniazzo, T. and Koseki, S.: A Methodology for Anomaly Coupling in Climate
Simulation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2061–2079,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001288" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001288</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib149"><label>149</label><mixed-citation>Verfaillie, D., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Donat, M. G., Pérez-Zanón, N.,
Solaraju-Murali, B., Torralba, V., and Wild, S.: How Reliable Are Decadal
Climate Predictions of Near-Surface Air Temperature?, J.  Climate,
34, 697–713, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0138.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0138.1</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib150"><label>150</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Counillon, F., and Bertino, L.: Alleviating the bias induced by
the linear analysis update with an isopycnal ocean model, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 1064–1074,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2709" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2709</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib151"><label>151</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Bethke, I., Keenlyside, N., Bocquet, M., and Shen,
M.-L.: Optimising assimilation of hydrographic profiles into isopycnal ocean
models with ensemble data assimilation, Ocean Modell., 114, 33–44,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.04.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.04.007</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib152"><label>152</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Counillon, F., Keenlyside, N., Svendsen, L., Gleixner, S.,
Kimmritz, M., Dai, P., and Gao, Y.: Seasonal predictions initialised by
assimilating sea surface temperature observations with the EnKF, Clim.
Dynam., 53, 5777–5797, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04897-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04897-9</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib153"><label>153</label><mixed-citation>While, J., Haines, K., and Smith, G.: A nutrient increment method for
reducing bias in global biogeochemical models, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 115, C10036, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006142" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006142</a>, 2010.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib154"><label>154</label><mixed-citation>Wilks, D.: On “Field Significance” and the False Discovery Rate, J.  Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 45, 1181–1189,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2404.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2404.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib155"><label>155</label><mixed-citation>Wilks, D.: “The stippling shows statistically significant grid points”:
How research results are routinely overstated and overinterpreted, and what
to do about it, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97,
2263–2273, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib156"><label>156</label><mixed-citation>Yeager, S. and Robson, J.: Recent progress in understanding and predicting
Atlantic decadal climate variability, Current Climate Change Reports, 3,
112–127, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0064-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0064-z</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib157"><label>157</label><mixed-citation>Yeager, S. G., Danabasoglu, G., Rosenbloom, N. A., Strand, W., Bates, S. C., Meehl, G. A., Karspeck, A. R., Lindsay, K., Long, M. C., Teng, H., and Lovenduski, N. S.:  Predicting
near-term changes in the Earth System: A large ensemble of initialized
decadal prediction simulations using the Community Earth System Model,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1867–1886,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0098.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0098.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib158"><label>158</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, S., Harrison, M. J., Rosati, A., and Wittenberg, A.: System Design
and Evaluation of Coupled Ensemble Data Assimilation for Global Oceanic
Climate Studies, Mon. Weather Rev., 135, 3541–3564,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3466.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3466.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib159"><label>159</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, R., Sutton, R., Danabasoglu, G., Kwon, Y.-O., Marsh, R., Yeager, S.
G., Amrhein, D. E., and Little, C. M.: A Review of the Role of the Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation in Atlantic Multidecadal Variability and
Associated Climate Impacts, Rev. Geophys., 57, 316–375,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000644" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000644</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
