“This work only used data which had received a quality control check and the record appears correct from 01/01/2010 to 15/08/2021. Any other suspicious data sections were removed. Due to outages in service and erroneous records the time series from the MEDS buoys are variable in length and do not necessarily span the full 11 year” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05671-4
Well, it doesn’t mean you were wrong - only that the authors did consider that possibility & attempt to rule it out. (Though being a Nature paper, its unlikely it would’ve reached publication stage without that issue being dealt with.)
Also you have my respect for taking in new information with a positive attitude!
“This work only used data which had received a quality control check and the record appears correct from 01/01/2010 to 15/08/2021. Any other suspicious data sections were removed. Due to outages in service and erroneous records the time series from the MEDS buoys are variable in length and do not necessarily span the full 11 year” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05671-4
Thanks for correcting me!
Well, it doesn’t mean you were wrong - only that the authors did consider that possibility & attempt to rule it out. (Though being a Nature paper, its unlikely it would’ve reached publication stage without that issue being dealt with.)
Also you have my respect for taking in new information with a positive attitude!