> "Re your 2005 observation: NPL accepted the original paper so an update to their model must fit their T&C scope. If not, I bet the authors would want to know."
The scientific discussion is fascinating as is -- I have my model published so can wait it out. What mystifies me is how they can make assertions on what appears to be a 2nd-order effect (the 2016 QBO anomaly) when they clearly don't have a good handle on what's causing the primary oscillation in the first place. In other words, how can they be certain it is an anomaly unless they are certain that the underlying phenomena is deterministic? The best explanation that they are able to come up with is that the anomaly is an additional transient bifurcation of the original bifurcation