Please stop with the propaganda...

The first link talks about a 2-year ocean cooling trend because that article was released in 2006:

Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily)

"Researchers found the average temperature ... fell 0.055 degrees
Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005"

The second link talks about a 4-5 year ocean cooling trend which is an obvious continuation of the 2-year trend documented in 2006 based on an interview on NPR in 2008:

The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press)

"The oceans, which contain 80 to 90 percent of the planet’s heat, have recently stopped warming! Over the past 4-5 years, “there has been a very slight cooling, but not
anything really significant,” Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently told National Public Radio."

You seem obsessed with discussing a long term trend of which I am trying to discuss a recent 4-5 year ocean COOLING trend.

Avery's article has nothing to do with the first one but rather a recent NPR interview.

Wow, it did not take you long to link to a far-left smear site:

www.DeSmogBlog.com by James Hoggan

$$$ Funded by John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group)

- Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada)

"So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.

That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate," he tells Mr. McKeown. It doesn't seem to bother Mr. McKeown that Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a
member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity."

...and of course realclimate.

I have an annoying habit of backing up what I talk about with facts and sources. I will try to stop doing that in the future or maybe NOT.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

"However, we can't use the past to predict the future, ..."  

You can't use model that don't regress all known data sets either.  But that hasn't stopped your team from trying to base public policy on such predictions one iota, now has it?

"because recent human-induced changes in atmospheric composition and land-use, which are unprecedented during the last few millions of years of glacial-interglacial cycles, will impact climate."

The empirical science says that aggregate human impact on the climate since the dawn of the industrial revolution has produced at most about 0.45 degree K impact on global climate.  This is insignificant in comparison to natural forces.  Moreover, it is insufficient to push global climate outside of the observed envelope of natural climate variation over the last 10,000 or even 800,000 years. Your team is reduced to making arguments that consider the last 1,000 or so years only.

"It is widely accepted that the approximate 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by the strongest component of Milankovitch cycles (changes in orbital parameters) which have a 100,000 year period."

Which translated, means you are arguing that the approximately 6% net variation in the intensity of incident solar radiation on the earth caused by the Milankovitch cycle is sufficient to account for the full 20 degree K range in global climate variation seen over the last 800,000 years.  Why is it so difficult for your team to comprehend that the .05% per decade varaition in solar intensity observed in the last century could account for the lions share of the .17 degree K per decade change seen 1970-2000.  Indeed, simple linear estimation suggests .05% Solar variatoin per decade ought to produce on the order of .16 degree K variation almost exactly the measured amount.   What's so hard to understand about this?

To further answer your question, since you were unable to comprehend the last answer: 

(1)  I would define the current climate in terms of the previous interglacial thermal optima because that is what this period is. (2) Unless I understood a great deal more about how the system actually works than is presently known, I would not even attempt to make predictons about its near term behavior with models.  (3) Identifying cause-effect relationships in a system this complex is a metrology problem.  There are two paths:  Paleoclimate reconstructions based on proxy data and direct measurements collected in the modern era.  These tasks are going to take many years to make the sort of progress that is needed.

In the meantime, I would not be making press releases and raising alarms as the more controversial members of your team are wont to do.