system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What do you do when you can't find a scientific explanation for your results?

(Almost) 3rd year meteorology PhD student in the UK.

I've had some interesting results from one of my model sensitivity tests but I'm really struggling to explain the result scientifically. I've come up with multiple hypotheses on the basis of the model change, but none of them have borne any fruit.

The dataset does seem to have a correlation between the variables I expect when I look at the mean values but upon closer inspection, some of it has no correlation whatsoever.

I'm running out of ideas and this is the last puzzle piece I need to tie up this paper/thesis chapter. Where do I go from here?
gpt
UK Physics PhD just for perspective: For your thesis, it's probably okay to have just exhausted all the likely possibilities.

Your thesis is basically an argument to show you approached your work in a scientific manner, and thus can actual do research independently. 

Outlining what you found, what models you tried to explain it with and why those don't work, is evidence of that.

You will also have to show that the results of your model are real to get away with that. I.e. That the result hasn't come about from some error in how you tested it.

The other thing to do is go through a very thorough re-review of the literature to see if a similar result has been published.