On the contrary, those all sound like equilibrium configurations to me, in the sense of the temperature being set by a balance between energy inputs and energy responses. I misspoke that rising CO2 levels would imply we are out of equilibrium, what I meant was that they have the potential to knock us out the equilibrium we are in. The fact that temperature on the Moon varies so fast shows conclusively that terrestrial planets find thermal equilibrium on timescales of a year or so! (Yes it would be longer for Earth than the Moon, we're bigger and have lots of water, but I doubt that much longer). The only way to actually go out of equilibrium in any significant way is to bifurcate from one equilibrium solution to another (i.e., Venus). But realistically, we are not likely to see a bifurcation like that any time soon.
So really, what I meant was that we already know the timescales on which the Sun can cause temperature variations on Earth, and they are probably managable for humanity. What we have no idea about is the timescales on which human intervention can alter the climate. If your arguments hold sway on the policymakers, we may find out. That's really what I meant about losing equilibrium, it was not well stated.