As we look at attribution of global warming to various physical mechanisms, one of the puzzling observations we can make is that many researchers place too much emphasis on a single cause. This is especially true of the research from those that have skeptical views of GHG-caused warming. For instance, Scafetta is convinced that the orbital forces are the key, and may also prove to be the cause of any long-term trends we are seeing -- yet he makes a concerted effort to downplay the effects of the CO2 control knob, giving the CO2 TCR a very low value. That is OK if he is truly being skeptical but not so good if he wants to retain objectivity.
From a previous post, we added Scafetta's orbital cyclic parameters to the CSALT model. These include orbital parameters that are lunar as well as solar and planetary. If we look at the periods that control lunar tides -- the 18.613 year period and the 8.848 period -- CSALT generates an amplitude and phase that lines up remarkably well with the diurnal tidal analysis of R.Ray at NASA Goddard , whose work has been referenced by skeptic Clive Best here  . See Figure 1 below:
Fig 1: The top panel shows the CSALT extracted 18.6-year diurnal tidal period amplitude (right axis) along with the temperature phasing. The left axis shows the yearly averaged actual tidal amplitude from R.Ray, which is completely in-phase with the temperature factor. The middle panel shows a higher resolution look at the tidal amplitudes over a shorter time interval. Both the 18.6 year and a faint 8.85/2 year extracted temperature signal are in phase and of comparable relative amplitudes as the data. The bottom panel shows the semidiurnal amplitude with a 8.85/2 temperature signal which has a different sign than the diurnal signal.
A WUWT post (with comments invoking yours truly) is arguing over the merits of the BERN model to describe the sequestration of CO2. In the past, I have described the sum of multiple exponentials of varying time constants in the BERN model as a heuristic approximation to the full diffusional model (see Figure 1) in several places -- see the book "The Oil ConunDrum", the "Diffusive Growth" paper (both available in the menu), and several blog posts here.
Fig. 1: Impulse Response of the sequestering of Carbon Dioxide to a normalized stimulus. The solid blue curve represents the generally accepted model, while the dashed and dotted curves represent the dispersive diffusion model
A set of orbital forcing cycles inspired by the persistent publications of Scafetta  was added to the CSALT model (also see Related). This set was grouped into two parts. The first set comprises the identified luni-solar periods identified by Scafetta and others. These are pure sine waves with a phase giving the best residual fit. Interesting that they do indeed have a significant impact on the model fit, raising the correlation coefficient above 0.992 for a Pratt 12-9-7 triple running filter . The other factor is a sun barycentric velocity that Scafetta has identified. This also has an impact on improving the fit as seen in Figure 1.
Fig. 1: CSALT interface including the orbital periods. See Figure 5 for a description of the Pratt filter.
Let's start with a telling quote :
James Annan: "There’s so little interesting stuff going on in climate science these days."
... well of course, if we don't have anything worthwhile to say. But then we also find this:
Peter Ván: "The basic mystery in thermodynamics is the universality. The validity of thermodynamic equations and theories regularly exceed the expectations." 
The CSALT model of the global temperature anomaly has no right to work as well as it does. After all, it solves no dynamical behavior and requires little information with regards to the complexity of the earth's surface. Yet, it still captures all the useful detail in the historical temperature record, leaving behind a residual close to being in the white noise regime.
Fig. 1 : Residual noise of the CSALT model is flat and close to white noise
The correction to the HadCRUT4 global temperature series as described by Cowtan and Way  and applied to the CSALT model is evaluated by the following fit:
Fig 1 : The top panel shows the original HadCRUT4 CSALT fit and the bottom panel is the CW Hybrid correction. No filtering was applied to the data. Note the narrowing of the gap in recent years
The previous post predicted that the recent diverging decrease in warming was an artifact of not taking measurements of the rapidly warming Arctic region, and since energy is balanced over the earth a decrease was to be expected. But once estimates of the Arctic and other regional warming was taken into account, this divergence would close up.
Cowtan and Way's hybrid correction to the HadCRUT global temperature series  has provoked expected interest by auditor Steve McIntyre. This is always welcome, because as with the majority of of these nosy irritants, the more that they try to find something wrong with a well-reasoned comprehensive analysis, the more that they lay out a cookie trail for us to follow. So guys like McIntyre make our job easier because what they try to expose backfires on them and it just gives climate scientists further substantiation of their own models -- not exactly what McIntyre had in mind.
This case is no different, starting with McIntyre's figure below:
Fig 1: Delta between CW Hybrid (basis 1961-1990) and HadCRUT4. From McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013/. Note the divergence in recent years.
Climate science investigators Cowtan and Way  updated the HADCRUT4 global temperature time series to properly account for areas that had little representation, incorporating regions such as Africa and the Arctic using geospatial kriging techniques . The Arctic in particular has shown considerable anomalous warming that hadn't been captured in that time series. They have a methods page that contains details here.
This impacts the CSALT model by adjusting the temperatures upward in the last few years to better match the movement out of the "pause" regime that the fluctuation components plus relentless CO2 forcing have been predicting would occur. See Figure 1.
Caldeira and Myrhvold  attempted the obvious by compiling various global warming models to try to extract simple thermal behavioral patterns, see their online paper.
They succeeded in my opinion.
What is most important about their work is that they placed diffusional models of warming, as pioneered by James Hansen , on an equal footing with first-order kinetics model. The first-order models use damped exponentials and are favored by analysts that want to keep the math simple. Caldeira and Myrhvold understand this and provide mixed exponential models that will piece-wise map to the diffusional responses normally seen in the numerical simulations.
The fit of the CSALT model to global temperature data is so close that it makes some sense to do a detailed analysis of the occasional glitches in the data. This could tell us if there are other noise components that could fill the gap.
Initially what I want to do is a subjective interpretation — if one can isolate the parts of the model that don't work so well, this may open up areas for further investigation. For example, was the large warming spike at the end of WWII (starting in late 1943) real or was it due to calibration issues ?