|Review of revised manuscript "The CMCC Decadal Prediction System"|
by Nicoli et al.
GMD-2022-181, submitted on 12 Jul 2022, revised 15 Nov 2022
The authors addressed all my previous comments. Thanks a lot for this effort!
Nevertheless some minor changes are needed prior to publication.
l.104: "couple" should read "coupled"
l.105: "ERA-Interim (1979-2020, ..."
Please include ERA5 here and state the correct dates for the use of ERA-Interim and ERA5, just as it is described in Table 1.
l.122: "e.g. Bethke et al., ..."
In the reference list, you added Brune & Baehr (2020), but actually the paper has not been used throughout the manuscript. Here would be a good place to add it.
I really appreciate the conclusion points in the beginning of section 5, but I would suggest to write a bit more cautiously:
l.370: "ENSO variability exhibits some predictability up to year 3, with highest values of ACC..."
My suggestion: "ENSO variability exhibits high values of ACC..."
I would suggest to not overstretch ENSO predictability here. In the context of state-of-the-art ENSO predictions, it would be a very strong statement if you claim that you've got predictability up to year 3, which actually is not really the case! In fact "up to year 3" stands for the mean of lead years 1-3. Skill most probably only stems from including lead year 1 in the mean. If one looks at lead year 3 only, it has no skill, see Fig.10c.
l.376: "exceptionally high skill for the NAO (ACC=0.58 ..."
My suggestion "high skill for the NAO (ACC=0.58 when averaged over years 1-9 ..."
According to Fig.9, the ACC value of 0.58 comes from an NAO mean over lead years 1 to 9. Fig.9c also illustrates nicely that NAO skill drops considerably for individual lead years after lead year 1 and re-emerges only for longer means. While the decadal assessment presented here has some value on its own, it remains fundamentally different from standard seasonal NAO predictions, which focus on lead year 1. To cover any misunderstanding, it is in my opinion therefore needed to distinguish your results by adding the information on the year 1-9 mean.
ll.418-422: "The encouraging results ..."
This paragraph seems to be 1:1 copied and pasted from the abstract, or vice versa. Please re-formulate and avoid 1:1 copy & paste.
"bu" should read "but"
"over 300-meter depth": I would suggest "over top 300 meters depth"
Fig.7, caption: "[REF]"
A reference is missing here, probably "Schneider et al., 2020"