The data we have has been evolving very rapidly over the last few years, but in general, it would appear to support these conclusions. If they'd thrown in a gue

The data we have has been evolving very rapidly over the last few years, but in general, it would appear to support these conclusions. If they'd thrown in a guesstimate on possible massive arctic permafrost/clathrate methane leaks, it'd make this estimate look conservative. Greenland, West and likely East Antarctica are all far more vulnerable to rapid melt than we had imagined, and those different findings have not to my knowledge so far been combined and used to update global models until now. The paper is written by some of the real heavy-hitters of climate science, so I would take it in some sense as almost a "statement of consensus" about what the new science is telling us. And, as many have been trying to warn, the answer is: it's not good.