Supplemental Material© Copyright 2022 American Meteorological Society (AMS)
For permission to reuse any portion of this work, please contact
permissions@ametsoc.org. Any use of material in this work that is determined to be “fairuse” under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 USC §107) or that satisfies theconditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 USC §108) does not
require AMS’s permission. Republication, systematic reproduction, posting in electronicform, such as on a website or in a searchable database, or other uses of this material,
except as exempted by the above statement, requires written permission or a licensefrom AMS. All AMS journals and monograph publications are registered with theCopyright Clearance Center (https://www.copyright.com). Additional details are provided
in the AMS Copyright Policy statement, available on the AMS website(https://www.ametsoc.org/PUBSCopyrightPolicy).

123456

LIST OF TABLES
Table S1. The SW modeling experiments for isolating the contribution from different
tropical ocean basins in forming the springtime North Pacific ENSO teleconnection bias during La Niña events. Basic state is the FM climatology of winds
and temperature during 1958 to 2010. Diabatic heating anomalies is composited during FM of the La Niña years. . . . . . . . . . . .

1.

.

2

7

Table S1. The SW modeling experiments for isolating the contribution from different tropical ocean basins in

8

forming the springtime North Pacific ENSO teleconnection bias during La Niña events. Basic state is the FM

9climatology of winds and temperature during 1958 to 2010. Diabatic heating anomalies is composited during

10

FM of the La Niña years.

11Experiment Name

HeatingLN tropTOGA−JRA (15◦ S-15◦ N)

LN IO

TOGA−JRA (15◦ S-15◦ N, 40◦ E-110◦ E)

LN WP

TOGA−JRA (15◦ S-15◦ N, 110◦ E-180◦ )LN CP

TOGA−JRA (15◦ S-15◦ N, 180◦ -110◦ W)

2

1213
14
15161718
1920
21
222324
25

2627
28
2930
3132

33
34

35
36

37
38
39
40

4142

43
44
45
46

47
48

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. S1. Stationary wave components of the 1000 hPa (left) and 300 hPa (right) stream
function anomalies simulated by (a) (d) “TOGA H+JRA T+JRA B”, (b) (e)“JRA H+TOGA T+JRA B”, (c) (f) “JRA H+JRA T+TOGA B” experiments in Table 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fig. S2. Stationary wave components of the 300 hPa stream function anomalies simulatedby (a) “TOGA H+TOGA T+JRA B” experiment, and (b) the difference between“TOGA H+TOGA T+JRA B” and “JRA all” experiments. . . . . . . . . .

.

. 4.

. 5

Fig. S3. Stationary wave components of the 1000 hPa (left) and 300 hPa (right) stream functionanomalies simulated by (a) (d) “JRA trop”, (b) (e) “TOGA trop” experiments in Table 2;(c) (f) their difference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

6Fig. S4. Stationary wave components of the 1000 hPa (left) and 300 hPa (right) stream function
anomalies simulated by (a) (d) “JRA xtrop”, (b) (e) “TOGA xtrop” experiments in Table 2;(c) (f) their difference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

7Fig. S5. Tropical diabatic heating during El Niño events for (a) JRA55’s DJ average, (b) JRA55’sFM average, (c) CESM1 TOGA simulations’ DJ average, (d) CESM1 TOGA simulation’s
FM average. The top panels are for the vertical cross section averaged over 15◦ S-15◦ N. The
bottom panels are for the horizontal distribution at 500 hPa. . . . . . . . . .

.

8Fig. S6. Tropical diabatic heating bias in CESM1 TOGA simulations when compared to (a) JRA55,(b) NCEP-NCAR (R1), (c) ERA20C, (d) ERAI, (e) ERA5, and (f) CFSR datasets during
FM of the El Niño events in 1980–2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. 9Fig. S7. Similar to Fig.6 but by imposing the CP diabatic heating biases (a)-(b) north (0◦ -15◦ N,180◦ -110◦ W) and (c)-(d) south (15◦ S-0◦ , 180◦ -110◦ W) of the equator separately. . . .

.

10Fig. S8. Evolution of the tropical diabatic heating bias by applying the iterative bias-correction technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

11Fig. S9. Stationary wave components of the 300 hPa stream function anomalies simulated by the SWmodel for understanding the residual North Pacific cyclonic circulation bias seen in “iter 9”(Fig. 11). Only the diabatic heating bias over the CP in “iter 9” (Fig. 9(j)) is used to force
the SW model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

12Fig. S10. Extratropical diabatic heating bias in (a) NINO and (b) “iter 9” experiment. the area thatexceeds 95% confidence level is stippled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 13

Fig. S11. (a) DJ and (b) FM-averaged tropical diabatic heating bias in CESM1 TOGA simulations
during La Niña events from 1958 to 2010. The top panels are for the vertical cross section
averaged over 15◦ S-15◦ N. The bottom panels are for the horizontal distribution at 500 hPa.
The area that exceeds 95% confidence level is stippled. . . . . . . . . . .
Fig. S12. Stationary wave components of the 300 hPa stream function anomalies simulated by (a)“LN trop”, (b) “LN IO”, (c) “LN WP”, and (d) “LN CP” experiments in Table S1. . . .

3.

14. 15

1000hPa(d) TOGA_H+JRA_T+JRA_B

300hPa(b) JRA_H+TOGA_T+JRA_B

1000hPa(e) JRA_H+TOGA_T+JRA_B

300hPa(c) JRA_H+JRA_T+TOGA_B

1000hPa(f) JRA_H+JRA_T+TOGA_B

300hPaunits：106·m2·s−1(a) TOGA_H+JRA_T+JRA_B

units: 106·m2·s−1
49

Fig.

S1.

Stationary wave components of the 1000 hPa (left) and 300 hPa (right) stream function

50

anomalies simulated by (a) (d) “TOGA H+JRA T+JRA B”, (b) (e) “JRA H+TOGA T+JRA B”, (c) (f)51“JRA H+JRA T+TOGA B” experiments in Table 1.

4

(a) TOGA_H+TOGA_J+JRA_B(b) Role of diabatic heaing & transients

untis: 106·m2·s−1

52

Fig.

S2.

Stationary wave components of the 300 hPa stream function anomalies simulated by (a)53“TOGA H+TOGA T+JRA B” experiment, and (b) the difference between “TOGA H+TOGA T+JRA B” and54“JRA all” experiments.

51000hPa(d) JRA_trop

300hPa(b) TOGA_trop

1000hPa(e) TOGA_trop

300hPa(c) = (b) - (a)1000hPa(f) = (e) - (d)300hPaunits：106·m2·s−1(a) JRA_trop

units: 106·m2·s−1
55

56

Fig. S3. Stationary wave components of the 1000 hPa (left) and 300 hPa (right) stream function anomalies
simulated by (a) (d) “JRA trop”, (b) (e) “TOGA trop” experiments in Table 2; (c) (f) their difference.

61000hPa(d) JRA_xtrop

300hPa(b) TOGA_xtrop

1000hPa(e) TOGA_xtrop

300hPa(c) = (b) - (a)1000hPa(f) = (e) - (d)300hPaunits：106·m2·s−1(a) JRA_xtrop

units: 106·m2·s−1
57

58

Fig. S4. Stationary wave components of the 1000 hPa (left) and 300 hPa (right) stream function anomalies
simulated by (a) (d) “JRA xtrop”, (b) (e) “TOGA xtrop” experiments in Table 2; (c) (f) their difference.

7

59

Fig. S5.

(a) JRA55 Q trop

DJ(b) JRA55 Q trop

FM(c) TOGA Q trop

DJ(d) TOGA Q tropFM

Tropical diabatic heating during El Niño events for (a) JRA55’s DJ average, (b) JRA55’s FM

60average, (c) CESM1 TOGA simulations’ DJ average, (d) CESM1 TOGA simulation’s FM average. The top

61

panels are for the vertical cross section averaged over 15◦ S-15◦ N. The bottom panels are for the horizontal

62

distribution at 500 hPa.

8D(a)
JRA55
D 72*$‫݄ٺ‬-5$
72*$‫݄ٺ‬-5$

IO

WPCP(d)ERAIG
G 72*$‫(݄ٺ‬5$,
72*$‫(݄ٺ‬5$,
IO WP CPE
E 72*$‫݄ٺ‬1&(31&$5
72*$‫݄ٺ‬1&(31&$5
5(b)NCEP-NCAR (R1) 5
IO WP CPF(c)72*$‫(݄ٺ‬5$&
ERA20CF
72*$‫(݄ٺ‬5$&(e)ERA5H
H 72*$‫(݄ٺ‬5$
72*$‫(݄ٺ‬5$

(f)
CFSR
II 72*$‫)&݄ٺ‬65
72*$‫)&݄ٺ‬65
IO WP CPIOWPCPIOWPCP-1 ҂ᶋᕷᅾ‫ے‬ᅾҁ.zGD\units: K·day-1 -1ᶋᕷᅾ‫ے‬ᅾҁ.zGD\҂63

Fig. S6. Tropical diabatic heating bias in CESM1 TOGA simulations when compared to (a) JRA55, (b)64NCEP-NCAR (R1), (c) ERA20C, (d) ERAI, (e) ERA5, and (f) CFSR datasets during FM of the El Niño events65in 1980–2009.

9

(a) LN_trop(b) LN_IO(a) CPN(c) LN_WP(d) LN_CP(b) CPS

units: 106·m2·s−1

66

67

Fig. S7. Similar to Fig.6 but by imposing the CP diabatic heating biases (a)-(b) north (0◦ -15◦ N, 180◦ -110◦ W)
and (c)-(d) south (15◦ S-0◦ , 180◦ -110◦ W) of the equator separately.

10(a) NINO

IO(b) iter 1

IO

WPCP

WP

CPWP

CP

IO

(d) iter 3WP

CPWP

CPWP

CP

(f) iter 5(h) iter 7IOCP(c) iter 2(e) iter 4IO

WP

IO

WP

CP

WP

CP

WP

CP

(g) iter 6(i) iter 8

IO

IO

IO

(j) iter 9IO

Fig. S8. Evolution of the tropical diabatic heating bias by applying the iterative bias-correction technique.

11

units：106·m2·s−1

68Fig. S9. Stationary wave components of the 300 hPa stream function anomalies simulated by the SW model69

for understanding the residual North Pacific cyclonic circulation bias seen in “iter 9” (Fig. 11). Only the diabatic70

heating bias over the CP in “iter 9” (Fig. 9(j)) is used to force the SW model.

12(a) NINO Q xtrop bias(b) iter 9 Q xtrop bias

71

72

Fig. S10. Extratropical diabatic heating bias in (a) NINO and (b) “iter 9” experiment. the area that exceeds
95% confidence level is stippled.

13

(a) TOGA Q trop bias

WP(b) TOGA Q trop bias

IOCPWP

LN FMCPUnits: K·day-1

Units：K·day-1 ）IO

LN DJ73

Fig. S11. (a) DJ and (b) FM-averaged tropical diabatic heating bias in CESM1 TOGA simulations during

74

La Niña events from 1958 to 2010. The top panels are for the vertical cross section averaged over 15◦ S-15◦ N.

75

The bottom panels are for the horizontal distribution at 500 hPa. The area that exceeds 95% confidence level is76

stippled.

14

(a) LN_trop(b) LN_IO(c) LN_WP(d) LN_CP

units: 106·m2·s−1

7778

Fig. S12. Stationary wave components of the 300 hPa stream function anomalies simulated by (a) “LN trop”,(b) “LN IO”, (c) “LN WP”, and (d) “LN CP” experiments in Table S1.

15