Remember this model-observation comparison in the 5AR? (Sure you do.)
Ed Hawkins recently tweeted (twote?) an update as of October 2014:
Now the observed temperatures are inside the 5-95% confidence band...barely.... But until the PDO changes its phase (which is currently negative), it's probably premature to rule out agreement at the 95% C.L.... (Of course, then people will argue about the influence of the PDO.) (And the surface stations, which have been good enough to show a hiatus, will again be claimed to be faulty, bet'cha.)
Besides, I never know what people think would happen if "the models are falsified," quote-unquote. Yeah -- so what is the alternative? There's lots of modeling to make better before the conclusion is that the GHG parts of the models are wrong. The GHG parts of the models are some of the best known science that is in the models -- it's the feedbacks (& aerosols) that are hard.
I don't see CO2 ever regaining its innocence -- which is what I think a lot of pseudo-skeptics think is going to happen...any day now....