> I wonder if this was the scientific interpretation that he was trying to convince people of.

Not exactly sure what you meant there, Paul. _But_, I think [Prof Broecker](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/17/science/scientist-at-work-wallace-s-broecker-iconoclastic-guru-of-the-climate-debate.html) was suggesting we don't really know what the climate system and weather are capable of doing. There are paleoclimate records, but it's not like they have good enough temporal resolution to see how fast they play out. There is [some evidence](http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/erignot/files/2017/06/Ice-melt-sea-level-rise-and-superstorms-evidence-from-paleoclimate-data-climate-modeling-and-modern-observations-that-2C-global-warming-is-highly-dangerous.pdf) these could be abrupt.

I suspect, although do not have a quote from him, that because the support for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is constrained to be positive, with a potentially long tail, and because I think Prof Broecker's standards of evidence were high ([just _read_ this, for example](https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~broecker/CO2%20Earths%20Climate%20Driver.pdf), particularly the last section), he was honestly insisting we don't know what will happen in the sequel of what he called "Revelle's experiment". The closest he came to a warning was in his ["Chaotic climate" article](http://lustiag.pp.fi/__CC-Art/__USRes/1995_broecker_chaotic_%20climate.pdf) for _Scientific_ _American_. Surely, the energy balance tallies suggest there's a _lot_ of energy being stored, and there is not, at present, an equilibrium between ocean reservoir and atmosphere for it. How will it arrive at equilibrium? [Will it be fast or slow?](https://www.mit.edu/~pog/src/gertler_changing_energy_summer_2019.pdf) I think Dr Broecker was suggesting we probably don't want to find out.