I dug a little deeper on your first link, and it appears that in order to come to a different conclusion, the scientists have just applied a different correction to the data... And, mind you, they're using extraordinarily unreliable ocean temperature measurements... Here's a key quote from a critique of the paper:
"K15 have made some relatively minor changes to the bias correction methods, and the result is a large increase in the post-1998 trend.
A. They added 0.12 oC to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships. As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend.
B. They also gave buoy data extra weight in the computations.
C. They also made adjustments to post-1941 data collected from ships, in particular a large cooling adjustment applied to readings over 1998-2000.
Taken together these changes largely explain the enhanced trend over the past 15 years. So now everybody needs to decide if they think these adjustments are valid.
Perhaps they are. The main problem for us observers is that other teams have looked at the same issues and come to different conclusions. And the post-1998 K15 data don’t match that from other independent sources, including weather satellites."
To put it plainly: if the data doesn't fit, just make some convenient corrections and then suddenly it'll fit exactly what you want it to.
I encourage you to read the whole critique:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possib...
The more I dig into this stuff the more I realize that the data, at least prior to satellite measurements, is just crap and needs to be discarded.