Jorrie's Lightcone calculator, in the default, uses the two model parameters 14.4 and 17.3 billion years as present and eventual Hubble times.
But you don't have to stay with the default, you can try varying. Those correspond to the 2013 Planck mission estimates, but it let's you select WMAP estimates (see the button at the top) which are 14.0 and 16.5
I happened to go to the WMAP option and then split the difference between 14.0 and 14.4 so I typed in and looked the case 14.2 and 16.5 billion years.
It matched the Delubec et al 4.4 billion year Hubble time (i.e. their 222 km/s per Mpc @ z=2.34
{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline R_{0} (Gly) & R_{\infty} (Gly) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.2&16.5&3300&68.9&0.741&0.259\\ \hline \end{array}} {\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{now} (c)&V_{then} (c) \\ \hline 0.299&3.340&3.0038&4.4009&19.410&5.811&10.562&1.37&1.32\\ \hline \end{array}}
So we could interpret Delubec et al as saying that TODAY Hubble rate could be slightly larger than what Planck mission says. Namely it could be the reciprocal of 14.2 billion years instead of 14.4.
A smaller Hubbletime corresponds to a larger Hubble rate. Anyone who wants to see what 14.2 corresponds to can paste this into google:
"1/(14.2 billion years"
and get 2.23160314 × 10
-18 hertz and then convert that to km/s per Mpc
If I paste this thing into google, to do the conversion:
"2.23160314 × 10^(-18) hertz in km/s per Mpc"
I get 68.86 km/s per Mpc
So the Delubec et al result doesn't really seem much at variance with what we already thought.
