but, they don't mention whether they tried to correct the results of the paper based on that better modelling decision and what would happen if they did. generally, when a paper makes an error, it can be corrected.
so, has anybody attempted to make the proper adjustments and see what the effects on the results are?
i know that this paper was keyed in on by certain denialist groups as evidence of onsetting cooling rather than the reality of warming, but what i'm more interested in is the predictive modelling of solar sunspot activity. i think that the scientific consensus is that an extended solar minimum would not prevent warming due to increased greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere altogether, but that it will slow it down a little, with exaggerated regional consequences, particularly in terrestrial regions of the northern hemisphere.
so, i understand that the publisher and one of the authors have "lost confidence" in the correctness of the outcome due to some poor modelling decisions. but, i'd kind of like to see it actually worked out, to see if those adjustments actually affect the outcome or not.