So your quote says we have an unusual sequence of years without apparent warming at the expected rate. Not that the models are broken, but that this is unusual. Given that, you might think about it a bit.
And scientists have.
They are aware of at least two things that explain the apparent discrepancy:
1) The arctic is heating around twice as fast as the rest of the planet. We know this from satellite data which provides better coverage of the arctic than the normal ground temperature stations.
The normal temperature data sets are light on measurement points in the arctic. Probably no surprise that is the case - not too many arctic ground weather stations.
Normally it would not matter, if the world was warming evenly. But because the Arctic is heating so much faster the normal temperature data sets we see charted, under representing the arctic area, are light in giving a true representation of the extent of warming over the full globe.
In this case it is likely that we do have warming much closer to the modeled expectation, but our ground temperature data sets are not adequately picking that up. Models OK? Seems fine.
2) Climate models normally don't attempt to include short term variability. But if you allow some features of the models to represent the interdecadal pacific oscillation then the current "pause" can be seen in and is expected by models. And the same models then predict continued warming as the interdecadal pacific oscillation shifts phase. http://www.reportingclimatescience....ate-models-simulate-global-warming-pause.html
"The authors write: “This is a compelling application of the result derived from other analyses, in that tropical Pacific surface temperatures in the negative phase of the naturally-occurring IPO can temporarily counteract the warming from in-creasing GHGs to produce a hiatus of warming in globally averaged surface air temperatures that can last for a decade or more, even as the climate system is still trapping excess heat of about 0.51.0Wm-2”."
