My understanding is that a new equilibrium can only be found, in general, when the net new input(s) to a system have stopped changing.
The amount of atmospheric CO2 continues to grow linearly[1] at best. The earth's climate may find a new equilibrium when CO2 stabilizes, or it may not. The resulting equilibrium may be conducive to human life, or it may not. But until that number flattens, we can only expect more change. And, of course, that is only one of the many stressors on the climate.
You're implicit assumption is that the system's response to ever increasing CO2 is indefinitely linear and proportional?
If you believe that I've got some beans you can buy.
This equilibrium you're chasing is much more transient than you'd like to think. Especially in the face of more and more accurate/precise observations.
I think you misread my comment, I made no such assumption.
The commenter I replied to said "I’m unsure about if ... the earth [is] finding a new equilibrium point potentially on the order of hundreds to thousands of years..."
I pointed to NASA measurements showing that atmospheric CO2 is increasing linearly and has been for some time. Whether its increase accelerates or decelerates or remains flat depends largely on many unpredictable factors (primarily humans).
Consequently (I tried to answer) - no, the climate will not find an equilibrium ("a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces") as long as one of the primary forces driving the system out of balance continues to change (i.e., we keep dumping more CO2 into the air) without some countervailing force changing at roughly the same rate. Today there is no countervailing force, so there will be no equilibrium.
I don't see how your comment ("this equilibrium you're chasing"?) relates at all.
CO2 may momentarily be one of a convoluted set of factors that contribute to the dominant harmonic component of the system with the output "global temperatures", but it is not in and of itself stable in it's relation to the output of the system. Clearly due to the afore mentioned "convoluted set of factors" having their own internal period/fluctuations/harmonics of convolution.
CO2 will rise, but it will eventually necessary uncouple from it's relationship to temperature at which point some other factor we are wholy unaware of will probably do something as equally disturbing to our environmental "equilibrium".
If you transform the system in respect to time, you'll find that from some perspective almost nothing ever happened, and from another the whole thing was wildly unstable and unpredictable.
It already doesn't matter what CO2 levels are doing now. Up and to the right and how hard is probably completely irrelevant. What matters is the flux of the system, and everything points to the fact that weve already left the station. There's no unwinding this thing, and it's not going where anyone thinks it's going.
The truly conservative thing to be doing would be to prepare ourselves for the most violent future, but instead what we're trying to do is grip onto the past with our already dying hand. Weakening our heart at the very moment we need to bolster it.
Everything is going to be fine, but you and I will be dead. I assure you of that.
Looks like someone else went out arguing, but I do actually agree with this. Maybe where I’m optimistic is that I think we are on track to stop adding more co2 within the next few hundred years or so (hopefully much sooner). Though I do think it’s worth knowing the natural environment also introduces co2 to the atmosphere at a roughly linear rate (via volcanos)
The amount of atmospheric CO2 continues to grow linearly[1] at best. The earth's climate may find a new equilibrium when CO2 stabilizes, or it may not. The resulting equilibrium may be conducive to human life, or it may not. But until that number flattens, we can only expect more change. And, of course, that is only one of the many stressors on the climate.
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...