I decided to have a deeper look at this during my lunchbreak. I found a bit of a smoking gun: they claim that "probability distribution function of our temperat

I decided to have a deeper look at this during my lunchbreak. I found a bit of a smoking gun: they claim that "probability distribution function of our temperature-based velocities are consistent with those described previously when uncertainty is accounted for (Supplementary Table 2)" If you look at Supplementary Table 2, it looks like their estimates are in line with existing studies (Malcolm 2002). If you actually look at the source of this comparison table (Table 2 Malcolm 2002), you will find that their estimates do not align well. E.g. for 0-315m/year they estimate 37.6/90/15 % for mean/lower/upper. The equivalent measure in Malcolm 2002 is 71.1 but has uncertainty of only +/-1.23%! So their model is "consistent" with existing models because 71.15 is within their range of 15-90%. Figure S23 looks even worse. So essentially they have proposed a model which doesn't really match existing literature and can't really be easily compared or used by others. They explain the differences away with assumptions but don't explain why their assumptions are better/worse. They might have produced a worse model but we don't have any data to tell! But maybe I'm completely wrong and this paper is super-useful to those in this field. I'd still have to see at least 1 paper actually use their model to be convinced.