The theory of QBO is largely based on the work of Richard Lindzen. Yet Lindzen does not have the greatest track record when it comes to research findings
>" Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest. "
One example of where Lindzen was wildly wrong was in projecting AGW trends:
That's part of the reason why we have a chance of developing a valid model for QBO. Like many research areas, it is easiest to make progress where the effort has been historically weak. And from what I have read on Lindzen, he has somehow made a name for himself while simultaneously getting debunked on his various theories.
On the other hand, what we have in this thread is an elegant and plausible model for QBO:
Somehow, someway Lindzen did not deduce this lunisolar correlation to QBO, even though he had cited the possibility.
Acceptance of a new model is partly dependent on the weaknesses of prior models. Lindzen has been on shaky standing for his contrarian views on climate science topics, and I think this is another example of that.