In general, this stuff is complicated, and it’s easy for people using “motivated reasoning” to come up with the answer they want. Lots of comments reflecting such misinformation appear on HN — it’s frustrating.
So, listening to random people isn’t such a good idea. Much better to read a report from people who study this stuff, like: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/, which I recommend to technically interested nonspecialists.
(I eat lunch with one of the co-authors of the technical paper in Nature linked to the OP, the press release is: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7535, paper is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3)
Obviously I am not taking in information without skepticism, otherwise I would not have asked the question.
But if I can't read something like that and refute it, then obviously I don't understand the issue very well. The best way to remedy that is to ask (not ignorant silence), so I'm a bit disappointed with the other replies who ridiculed me for asking.
Resources like the overview report I linked are critical.