Brown, Hill & Haywood (2020) offered a critical evaluation of the theory and methods of the Oscillayers approach and attempted to test its utility by reproducing global circulation model (GCM)‐based palaeoclimatic reconstructions of two variables (Bio1 and Bio12) for four different time points (130 ka, 787 ka, 3.2 Ma and 3.3 Ma). They concluded that Oscillayers show poor agreement with independent GCMs and thus do not provide a robust approximation of palaeoclimate throughout the Plio‐Pleistocene. Here, I demonstrate that the authors underestimated the ability of Oscillayers to reproduce independent GCMs by not taking into account inter‐framework differences between the models used to generate the Oscillayers and PaleoClim datasets. However, upon correcting this systematic error, differences in Bio1 and Bio12 between Oscillayers and PaleoClim GCMs are less than ± 1°C or ± 50 mm, on average, in 35.9% (range: 11.8–59.0%) or 46.7% (20.8–66.0%) of values, respectively. Thus, the agreement between Oscillayers and PaleoClim is, on average, c. 1.5–2 times higher than estimated by Brown et al. (2020) and mostly well above the inter‐model agreement between two commonly used GCMs (CCSM and MIROC) for the Last Glacial Maximum. Consequently, I conclude that the Oscillayers approach does provide reasonably robust approximations of palaeoclimate throughout the Plio‐Pleistocene. Some clarifications are given.

中文翻译：

---

对“对Oscillayers方法和数据集的关键评估”的答复

Brown，Hill和Haywood（2020）对Oscillayers方法的理论和方法进行了批判性评估，并试图通过再现基于全球循环模型（GCM）的两种不同变量（Bio1和Bio12）的古气候重构来测试其效用。时间点（130 ka，787 ka，3.2 Ma和3.3 Ma）。他们得出的结论是，震荡层与独立的GCM不一致，因此不能在整个上新世更新世提供一个可靠的古气候近似值。在这里，我证明了作者低估了Oscillayers复制独立GCM的能力，没有考虑到用于生成Oscillayers和PaleoClim数据集的模型之间的框架间差异。但是，在纠正此系统错误后，震荡层和PaleoClim GCM之间的Bio1和Bio12差异平均分别小于±1°C或±50 mm，分别为35.9％（范围：11.8-59.0％）或46.7％（20.8-66.0％）。因此，Oscillayers与PaleoClim之间的协议平均而言c。比Brown等人估计的高1.5到2倍。（2020年），并且大大超过了两个常用的GCM（CCSM和MIROC）之间的模型间协议，以期达到最后一次冰期最大值。因此，我得出的结论是，Oscillayers方法的确在整个上新世更新世提供了合理可靠的古气候近似值。给出了一些说明。