The full story is actually (I think) more interesting than the headline suggests. Really what we have here are two methods of calculating the age of the univer

The full story is actually (I think) more interesting than the headline suggests. Really what we have here are two methods of calculating the age of the universe that disagree. And we are getting to a stage where the disagreement (or "tension") is fairly statistically significant (3 or 4 sigma if I remember correctly). But, if LambdaCDM is the correct model for the universe these two methods should give the same age and so the fact that they are different implies that there is more to the universe (new physics!) than LambdaCDM. This is very exciting (and imo much more exciting than a 10% change of the age of the universe)! Of course, both sets of measurements are fantastically hard to make and so there is a chance that this disagreement is just a result of a systematic that hasn't been properly understood/controlled for... But people are starting to think this might be real. Here's a readable summary of what's going on: https://astrobites.org/2016/08/22/the-trouble-with-h0/ https://astrobites.org/2016/08/22/the-trouble-with-h0/