I believe we were speaking of raw temperature data before the "pause buster" adjustments. For instance we see the "adjustments they made to the raw US data and they have done it on other data as well. They moved the old data lower to make the new data appear to be warmer.
At higher altitudes the increasing greenhouse effect due to rising levels of greenhouse gasses is causing cooling while the surface is being warmed, so that at certain mid altitudes the cooling vs warming is a net zero.
that is the theory... but then why does change in ocean temps lead the change in temperature over land temps in the data records?
Stunning Global Heat Wave Pushes Planet Into Uncharted Territory "Humanity's experiment with planetary warming has reached a new level of extremes. Last month was the hottest February in 137 years of record keeping, according to data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It's the 10th consecutive month to set a new record, and it puts 2016 on course to set a third straight annual record. It was a big month, not only the hottest February but the most unusual warmth for any month on record. Unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic, averaging an astonishing 20 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, melted away layers of ice to record-low levels. The heat helped prolong the longest planet-wide coral bleaching event. These grim milestones coincide with the biggest recorded jump in carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas. To be sure, some of this is the result of a monster El Niño weather pattern lingering in the Pacific Ocean. But the broader trend is clear: We live on a planet that is warming rapidly, with no end in sight. Since 1980, the world has set a new annual temperature record roughly every three years, and 15 of the hottest 16 years ever measured are in the 21st century. The chart below shows earth's warming climate, measured from land and sea, dating back to 1880..." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...ic-put-2016-on-course-to-break-climate-record
Well if there was a spike in temperature, I would expect a spike in CO2 to confirm that the temperature actually went up and wasn't just a result of data "adjustment". So the question is, "what's causing this rise in temperature?", if anything other than the El Nino. It looks to me that we are observing fluctuations in CO2 driven by, and therefore lagging, Temperature, on top of a slowly rising CO2 background with a much longer periodicity. If the mean temperature is slowly rising than background CO2 will rise with a similar period as the mean T. Compounding this, and with still different, and irregular periodicities will be anthropomorphic CO2, and all other net sources of CO2 -- animal, vegetable, and mineral. It should be clear to anyone, even non-scientists, that a rising CO2 in conjunction with a rising temperature does not mean that the CO2 rise is causing the temperature rise. It was hypothesized early on that because of CO2's greenhouse gas properties (quite weak in the case of CO2) that rising background CO2 might be responsible for a rising mean temperature globally. Three factors make this hypothesis unlikely to be correct, one is satellite remote sensing data --not available to early investigators-- which does not confirm surface station data; another is the increasing number of other observations inconsistent with the hypothesis, and the third and final factor inconsistent with the so called AGW hypothesis are the failure of a large number of independent models, based on the hypothesis, to give results approximately consistent with observation. To get any measurable rise in temperature at all from the experimentally observed rise in atmospheric CO2, these models must incorporate various positive feedback mechanisms. But when that is done, the models then produce a prediction of exponentially rising future temperature. A prediction that to date is inconsistent with actual observation. In fact if any of these models were correct, all life forms would have long ago perished from the surface of the Earth. To have a relatively stable mean Earth surface temperature over long periods, temperature perturbations, positive or negative, requires that there be a zero or negative feedback mechanism. So in this respect, all of the models that have applied positive feedback are unrealistic. For this, and many other reasons, it is not surprising that none of these models have been successful in producing output consistent with observation.
Turns out that temps are exactly within modeled projections. CO2 is earth's most important greenhouse gas. The levels of it has always controlled earth's temperature. Without it the greenhouse effect would be far less and the earth would be thirty to fifty degrees F colder. This chart created by the IPCC some time ago is still correct and temps are within the post 2000 predictions. It give historical perspective of what was, and what will happen. The end of the world. As we've known it.