Thanks for your comment! I did read that piece. However, there are two important things to consider.

First, it is better to refer to peer-reviewed scientific literature than to pieces coming out of think tanks, especially for academics. The reason is that peer-reviewed literature has been vetted by other scientists as opposed to being the opinion of a particular person. That's why I made sure to indicate what the peer-reviewed literature says in my response.

Second, the piece you indicated relies on a particular geopotential height instead of what is more relevant to actual planning--the overall warming impacts (cf. the fifth diagram). The article I linked to ( https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378 ) talks about the model estimates in terms of actual observed warming. It is more relevant to human beings and policy to consider the overall warming impacts, which is why that article discusses what warming the models have predicted and that those predictions have overall been observed.

Thanks for your comment. You are right that we need to compare the historical record with, inter alia, models. However, the long-term evidence is clear: the models have very effectively predicted actual warming (cf. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378 ). A helpful and well-written explanation of various predictions and their accuracy can be found at Carbon Brief: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming .