State of the climate 2013 and the future?

Well, I have perused it for about 20 minutes, hardly enough time to give any critique. But I was looking for something and didn't find it.

This is from the 2008 State of the Climate report:

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” Pg 24, http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/c...

I think this is a fairly critical aspect of climate science. Yet, here we are 5 years later and the current report says nothing about this at all (that I could find).

Do you think model validation is important? If there is a model discrepancy or even close to being one, shouldn't that be a front page item?

1998 had 7 consecutive months above 0.4C above the established satellite measured mean temperature ('81 - '10), while 2013 had 1 month above 0.4C and 2010 had 6 months above the 0.4C mark.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...

There's no warming trend in the UAH data set.

Using "close-to-ground" temperature measurements as a basis for global average temperature is the same as measuring the height of pygmies to establish the average height of humans. All you have to do is look up in the sky and watch the clouds form to understand how variable temperature really is in the atmosphere. Try watching a cloud form. Ground temperatures are limited at showing a good temperature reading simply because the ground will keep temperatures from varying too much for too long.

Added : Here's the offering from the media of how temperatures have changed : http://news.yahoo.com/climate-records-shattered-20...

Can you see any patterns in the colors (warming and cooling) around the Antarctic? Surface temperatures are BS. Where is your calculation that shows an increase of 1.2 parts per 10,000 of CO2 in our atmosphere causes any increase that is negligible? ... or even 1% of the proposed 0.74C warming since 1880?

There is nothing in this report that shows any resemblance of a calculation. More scientific jargon that shows absolutely no connection to CO2 warming.

We saw peaks in temps around 1878, 1942, and 2005, with troughs at 1910 and 1974, if you take out the seemingly linear warming. I would expect that the down cycle is going to be occurring for another 15-20 years. During this time period, we will see little to no warming followed by another 30 year period with warming of about 0.7 degree.

I would further place the total warming by 2100 (as compared with now) at around 1.2 degrees warmer.

As for this 280 page report, I will look it over, but clearly cannot give a proper critique in the timeperiod that this question will remain open, if I felt at all compelled to do so. I do not fell compelled to attemtp a porper critique, but will read over it at my leisure.