> Now look at this graph and please tell me if temperature did not rise in the 21st century.
These aren't "graphs", they're histograms, and it's impossible to read any trend lines off of them. So they're useless for this discussion.
> Look at the graph titled "2001 Projections vs. Observations", and see how closely the prediction matches reality starting 2001.
First of all, since the IPCC TAR was published in 2001, anything before 2001 is not a "projection", it's a "fit of model to past data". (And notice that the model does not fit all of the past data very well; before the mid-1900s in Figure 2 there is significant divergence. A model that can't retrodict the past can't be expected to predict the future.)
Second, these graphs are useless because they just give the "prediction" as a single line, with no error bars and no differentiation between the different sets of model runs that were based on different assumptions for how CO2 would rise. In other words, these graphs are spin, not science.
These aren't "graphs", they're histograms, and it's impossible to read any trend lines off of them. So they're useless for this discussion.
> Look at the graph titled "2001 Projections vs. Observations", and see how closely the prediction matches reality starting 2001.
First of all, since the IPCC TAR was published in 2001, anything before 2001 is not a "projection", it's a "fit of model to past data". (And notice that the model does not fit all of the past data very well; before the mid-1900s in Figure 2 there is significant divergence. A model that can't retrodict the past can't be expected to predict the future.)
Second, these graphs are useless because they just give the "prediction" as a single line, with no error bars and no differentiation between the different sets of model runs that were based on different assumptions for how CO2 would rise. In other words, these graphs are spin, not science.