Longer-term trend is 0.2C/decade. There's certainly support for 0.3-0.4C/decade with the way emissions are going and with natural variability now releasing the brakes.
Wouldn't particularly want to argue between 0.17C/decade I mentioned and your 'longer-term trend is 0.2C/ decade'. I am sure there are projections for 0.3-0.4C/decade on BAU scenarios not far in the future. e.g.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-14.htmTaking the top of several models all SRES range gives that sort of rate for 2000 to 2020, but that is using the uncertainty range to the max. While the highest possible rate of rise could be as high as 0.4C/decade, over the next couple of decades I don't think our best estimate of the expected rate would be as high as 0.35C/decade.
>"with the way emissions are going"
Well that is a little vague, eg anthro or anthro + natural, also you could be referring to recent announcement that emissions are flat or have fallen for last year. The impression is you are asserting a strong rise. I suppose I have no real complaint as it is only asserting what has actually happened and recent fall is not expected to continue.
>"with natural variability now releasing the brakes"
I certainly wouldn't deny this is a likely future development. However, is there evidence that the airborne fraction has actually started to change upward? Doesn't the way you have expressed this give the impression it has definitely already started rather than a position of being a likely future development?
(Sorry if I am grumpy and complaining. Truth rather than over doing the alarm seems a sensible precaution against alarmism. If we don't challenge what we think we know, how do we know whether we are deluding ourselves in either direction?)