I found this post to be so interesting that I tried to reproduce it using the RSS land and ocean anomalies, NINI34 SST anomalies and SATO index.

This post shows both my R script and my results. My results are quite consistent with your. Thanks for the post, I learned a lot following your lead.

It only takes me 2 months to reproduce your work. While I’ll never catch up, I’m enjoying the ride.

D Kelly O’Day

Thanks if anybody can help me.

[Response: That idea is laughable”

Not a bad idea at all. Look at the sea level, which is a good proxy for ocean heat content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
10 years after the eruptions the heat content is probably like it would have been without the eruption. The first years the sun is blocked and energy is lost, but then the ocean has cooled and for a few years does not radiate as much energy as it would have done without the eruption, so the net loss over a decade seems close to zero.

[Response: Smile when you say that, pardner.]

Your MEI adjustment can not be correct and GISS is probably not the best datasource.
http://virakkraft.com/Low-trop-ENSO.jpg
There is no reason to assume pre-1995 temperature would not follow the MEI like it did post-1995, without the volcanoes.

my bad it was r2

Perhaps you’re thinking of r2?

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.abstract

“So-called “reduction of error” (RE) and “coefficient of efficiency” (CE) skill scores for the decadal reconstructions were used as metrics of validation skill as in past work (20, 32). Because of its established deficiencies as a diagnostic of reconstruction skill (32, 42), the squared correlation coefficient r2 was not used for skill evaluation. ”

32: 1. Mann ME, 2. Rutherford S, 3. Wahl E,
4. Ammann C
(2007) Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods. J Geophys Res 112:D12109.

42: 1. Wahl ER, 2. Ammann CM (2007) Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Clim Change 85:33–69.

(and since I’m now using R, it was trivially easy to fit).]

Sorry but hasn’t Mann said R is useless (although real statisticians would not agree with him)?

What’s youre take on this?

[Response: I'm not aware of any such statement. Do you have a reference?

If he believes that, then I disagree with him.]

Out of curiosity– are the ±uncertainty intervals you mention standard errors, or 95% confidence? Did you assume the errors are AR(1)? ARMA?

Other than that, your results on the reduction in lag-1 autocorrelation and the reduction in uncertainty in the trend match what I’ve been getting.

[Response: The error ranges are 2-sigma, which is effectively 95% confidence. I used an ARMA(1,1) model for the errors (and since I'm now using R, it was trivially easy to fit).]