I don't have sources at hand so this is off the top of my head, but IIRC stabilising carbon levels in the atmosphere would leave us with as an additional increase of 0.5-1°C over the next hundred years. Current anthropogenic emissions are roughly 10 Gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/a), while natural carbon sinks take up roughly 5 GtC/a. This means we would have to cut emissions in half to reach that point. Even if we were to magically get to a rather unlikely zero emissions, so 0 GtC/a, the carbon that is already in the atmosphere only gets sequestered at a rate of 5 GtC/a still, so it would take some time to return to pre-industrial concentration levels. Further warming would stop relatively fast, but it wouldn't reverse the damage that has already occurred due to the warming so far. Many ecosystems would still fail because their equilibrium has already been irrecoverably disrupted and they are just limping along in a proverbial death spiral. Which is the problem with reducing the question to climate effects. So even if we had this magical carbon switch, which we sadly don't, things are all but guaranteed to get worse for a good while there.