NEW 4/10/09: There is an update to this post, see below the “read the rest of this entry” – Anthony
Guest Post by Richard Lindzen, PhD.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT
This essay is from an email list that I subscribe to. Dr. Lindzen has sent this along as an addendum to his address made at ICCC 2009 in New York City. I present it here for consideration. – Anthony
Simplified Greenhouse Theory
The wavelength of visible light corresponds to the temperature of the sun’s surface (ca 6000oK). The wavelength of the heat radiation corresponds to the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere at the level from which the radiation is emitted (ca 255oK). When the earth is in equilibrium with the sun, the absorbed visible light is balanced by the emitted heat radiation.
The basic idea is that the atmosphere is roughly transparent to visible light, but, due to the presence of greenhouse substances like water vapor, clouds, and (to a much lesser extent) CO2 (which all absorb heat radiation, and hence inhibit the cooling emission), the earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of such gases.
The Perturbed Greenhouse
If one adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, one is adding to the ‘blanket’ that is inhibiting the emission of heat radiation (also commonly referred to as infrared radiation or long wave radiation). This causes the temperature of the earth to increase until equilibrium with the sun is reestablished.
For example, if one simply doubles the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increase is about 1°C.
If, however, water vapor and clouds respond to the increase in temperature in such a manner as to further enhance the ‘blanketing,’ then we have what is called a positive feedback, and the temperature needed to reestablish equilibrium will be increased. In the climate GCMs (General Circulation Models) referred to by the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), this new temperature ranges from roughly 1.5°C to 5°C.
The equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 (including the effects of feedbacks) is commonly referred to as the climate sensitivity.
Two Important Points
1. Equilibration takes time.
2. The feedbacks are responses to temperature – not to CO2 increases per se.
The time it takes depends primarily on the climate sensitivity, and the rapidity with which heat is transported down into the ocean. Both higher sensitivity and more rapid mixing lead to longer times. For the models referred to by the IPCC, this time is on the order of decades.
This all leads to a crucial observational test of feedbacks!
The Test: Preliminaries
Note that, in addition to any long term trends that may be present, temperature fluctuates on shorter time scales ranging from years to decades.
Such fluctuations are associated with the internal dynamics of the ocean- atmosphere system. Examples include the El Nino – Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.
These fluctuations must excite the feedback mechanisms that we have just described.
The Test
1. Run the models with the observed sea surface temperatures as boundary conditions.
2. Use the models to calculate the heat radiation emitted to space.
3. Use satellites to measure the heat radiation actually emitted by the earth.
When temperature fluctuations lead to warmer temperatures, emitted heat radiation should increase, but positive feedbacks should inhibit these emissions by virtue of the enhanced ‘blanketing.’ Given the model climate sensitivities, this ‘blanketing’ should typically reduce the emissions by a factor of about 2 or 3 from what one would see in the absence of feedbacks. If the satellite data confirms the calculated emissions, then this would constitute solid evidence that the model feedbacks are correct.
The Results of an Inadvertent Test
Above graph:
Comparison of the observed broadband LW and SW flux anomalies for the tropics with climate model simulations using observed SST records. The models are not given volcanic aerosols, so the should not expected to show the Mt. Pinatubo eruption effects in mid-1991 through mid-1993. The dashed line shows the mean of all five models, and the gray band shows the total rnage of model anomalies (maximum to minimum).
It is the topmost panel for long wave (LW) emission that we want.
Let us examine the top figure a bit more closely.
From 1985 until 1989 the models and observations are more or less the same – they have, in fact, been tuned to be so. However, with the warming after 1989, the observations characteristically exceed 7 times the model values. Recall that if the observations were only 2-3 times what the models produce, it would correspond to no feedback. What we see is much more than this – implying strong negative feedback. Note that the ups and downs of both the observations and the model (forced by observed sea surface temperature) follow the ups and downs of temperature (not shown).
Note that these results were sufficiently surprising that they were confirmed by at least 4 other groups:
Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.
Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, 2003: Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.
Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.
The preceding authors did not dwell on the profound implications of these results – they had not intended a test of model feedbacks! Rather, they mostly emphasized that the differences had to arise from cloud behavior (a well acknowledged weakness of current models). However, as noted by Chou and Lindzen (2005, Comments on “Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis”, J. Climate, 18, 2123-2127), the results imply a strong negative feedback regardless of what one attributes this to.
The Bottom Line
The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.
An aside on Feedbacks
Here is an easily appreciated example of positive and negative feedback. In your car, the gas and brake pedals act as negative feedbacks to reduce speed when you are going too fast and increase it when you are going too slow. If someone were to reverse the position of the pedals without informing you, then they would act as positive feedbacks: increasing your speed when you are going too fast, and slowing you down when you are going too slow.
Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no.
UPDATE: There are some suggestions (in comments) that the graph has issues of orbital decay affecting the nonscanner instrument’s field of view. I’ve sent a request off to Dr. Lindzen for clarification. – Anthony
UPDATE2: While I have not yet heard from Dr. Lindzen (it has only been 3 hours as of this writing) commenter “wmanny” found this below, apparently written by Lindzen to address the issue:
“Recently, Wong et al (Wong, Wielicki et al, 2006, Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Clim., 19, 4028-4040) have reassessed their data to reduce the magnitude of the anomaly, but the remaining anomaly still represents a substantial negative feedback, and there is reason to question the new adjustments.”
I found the text above to match “wmanny’s” comment in a presentation given by Lindzen to Colgate University on 7/11/2008 which you can see here as a PDF:
http://portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGallery/LindzenLectureBeyondModels.pdf
– Anthony
UPDATE3: I received this email today (4/10) from Dr. Lindzen. My sincere thanks for his response.
Dear Anthony,
The paper was sent out for comments, and the comments (even those from “realclimate”) are appreciated. In fact, the reduction of the difference in OLR between the 80’s and 90’s due to orbital decay seems to me to be largely correct. However, the reduction in Wong, Wielicki et al (2006) of the difference in the spikes of OLR between observations and models cannot be attributed to orbital decay, and seem to me to be questionable. Nevertheless, the differences that remain still imply negative feedbacks. We are proceeding to redo the analysis of satellite data in order to better understand what went into these analyses. The matter of net differences between the 80’s and 90’s is an interesting question. Given enough time, the radiative balance is reestablished and the anomalies can be wiped out. The time it takes for this to happen depends on climate sensitivity with adjustments occurring more rapidly when sensitivity is less. However, for the spikes, the time scales are short enough to preclude adjustment except for very low sensitivity.
That said, it has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.
Best wishes,
Dick
Sponsored IT training links:
Best quality 70-448 prep material is available for download. Pass the real exam using JN0-350 guide and E20-361 lab tutorial.
Anthony,
Still no word on why Dr. Lindzen used data that has been withdrawn by the scientists who measured it??? Seems like you have been had. It makes your blog look bad when you cannot defend the data that you publish. You state that you feel that the reference wmanny found is good enough for you. That footnote gives no explanation of any objections that may exist and serves only to prove that Dr. Lindzen knew he was using deceptive data when he wrote this blog for you. If this data were used by a supporter of AGW you would have a fit. You cannot have it both ways. You should obtain a response from Dr. Lindzen and explain to your readers why we should accept data that has been withdrawn from informed discussion, or you need to withdraw this post.
“Gad! If it ain’t the madcap global warm-mongers, it’s the fear-mongering head-in-the-sands ’sustainability’ folks. Watch out guys, they’re coming for your muscle cars! Instead of the cool new Camaro, here’s what Obama and G(overnment) M(otors) are offering for our cruisin’ future:”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906731177395605.html
Ain’t NO way you’re getting a date for prom in That thing…
Michael Sweet,
My, my, aren’t we full of demands today. Instead of trying to give marching orders to our host, maybe you should start your own blog. You might even get a comment in response.
There is nothing stopping you from writing to Prof. Lindzen on your own. It’s not worth my time to go back and research the answer given on another blog [Jeff Id’s, if I recall correctly] that explains why Prof. Lindzen used the data that he did, instead of the data that you insist he should have used.
But I do have this link handy [click], which shows that Lindzen has forgotten more climatology than you will ever know. Like most people, I prefer to listen to M.I.T.’s head of its Atmospheric Sciences department when it comes to a question of climatology.
And it should be pointed out that after all the impotent arm waving by the AGW/CO2 contingent, there is still no explanation of why skeptics are required to prove anything. The AGW folks have failed to make a successful argument that shows their
hypothesisconjecture is anything other than speculation based on a series of “what if” arguments, which are in turn based on always-inaccurate computer climate models.So, one more time: the burden is entirely on the purveyors of the AGW hypothesis to show that their new conjecture explains reality better than the theory of natural climate variability. In fact, it does not. If it did, then the AGW/CO2 hypothesis would have predictive value. Since AGW/CO2 has repeatedly failed to successfully predict the climate — including this N.H. winter’s extraordinary temperatures — then it must be discarded.
When/if your new hypothesis can make better predictions than the theory of natural climate variability, get back to us. In the mean time, the climate will continue to oscillate within historically defined parameters around a trend line that goes back to the last great Ice Age.
That is the theory of natural climate variability’s predictive value. Despite the climate alarmists’ pretending otherwise, there is no vague “tipping point”. There is no runaway global warming. And CO2 has only a very minuscule effect on the climate — an unmeasurably small effect that is overwhelmed by numerous other factors, to the point that it doesn’t even matter; as CO2 rises, the Earth continues to cool. That fact alone destroys the AGW/CO2 claim.
If the AGW/CO2 hypothesis was backed by empirical, real world science, then well known proponents like Gore, Hansen and others would have no fear of publicly debating their position, as Prof. Lindzen repeatedly does.
Instead, they run and hide out from debate, tails firmly tucked between their hind legs. That tells you all you need to know about the confidence they have in what they’re trying to sell us.
Smokey:
Fact of the matter is, that Dr Lindzen is one of the very few so called experts that the anti-global warming crowd have who actually has any credible record in research and scientific publishing.
He had a good idea with his Iris Effect, but it wasn’t born out by subsequent work. Sadly, rather than moving on to explore other ideas, he refused to face facts, and is now reduced to misrepresenting other scientists work as demonstrated in this blog post.
The fact that you and your fellow travelers put so much store in obviously dodgy stuff like this says a lot about the weakness of your case.
As does your insistence that people adhering to anti-AGW hypotheses, are somehow exempt from normal rules of scientific debate and evidence, such as coherence, logic, and not misrepresenting facts and other peoples work.
Smokey:
AGW predicts global CLIMATE will shift, the weather last winter in NH is not relevant to global climate. Climate is defined as the 30 year trend.
1. According to the National Climate Data Center, this winter was the 8th warmest GLOBALLY in the 130 year record. That seems to me like a pretty high value, as predicted by AGW.
2. Surface temperatures are warmer but the stratosphere was the second coolest (of 31 years) as predicted by AGW, but not by Natural Climate variability.
3. Record setting heat is becoming common. The climate has not yet gotten warm enough to eliminate all cold records, but they are far fewer than record heat events.
4. As predicted 30 years ago, the Arctic and
5. Antarctic ice is melting.
6. The Audubon Society reports birds shifting northerly in the USA.
7. Spring is earlier and
8. fall is later.
9. The sea level is rising at an increasing pace.
Natural climate variability does not predict any of these events, but AGW did decades ago. How many more examples do you need?
This thread was started with a post by Dr. Lindzen where he claims data shows there is a problem with AGW. He is using data that was withdrawn several years ago by the scientist who measured the data. It is up to Dr Lindzen to document why we should accept this data, since the scientist who measured the data says it should not be used. It is deceptive to post the data without stating that it has been updated and giving the reason it is being used. Mr. Watts obviously expected a response since his first note says it is three hours after he contacted Dr. Lindzen. Why should I contact Dr. Lindzen when he does not bother to return Mr. Watts’s e-mails?
Mike Sweet
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/wuwt-ice-survey-shows-thickening-arctic-ice/#more-6910
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/polar-ice-worries-north-and-south/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
Just from those recent threads here, it is clear that three of Michael Sweet’s claims are anything but ‘settled’.
The experts here can deal with the rest of them.
/Mr Lynn
“AGW predicts global CLIMATE will shift, the weather last winter in NH is not relevant to global climate.”
Of course not since the NH is not part of the globe. (sarc/off)
“AGW predicts global CLIMATE will shift”
Ya… but when????
Let’s dispose of Craig Allen first: Anyone who labels an internationally esteemed climatologist, and the head of M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department as a “so-called” expert has zero credibility here.
So, on to Michael Sweet.
Thanks for responding. You do know, however, that every single one of your points is highly debatable, if not wrong outright. Rather than put up my citations on a week old thread, I’ll just leave you to explain these charts:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
So who are you gonna believe? James Hansen? Al Gore? The UN/IPCC? Or your own lyin’ eyes?
Smokey:
Your click 1 is a of a single station cherry pic.
As you know, continental analyses demonstrate that Antarctic sea and air temperatures are rising.
Your click 2 and 3 is a presentation of data from just 2002 to 2008. Why not present the entire instrumental dataset as shown here at the Australian Bureau of Meterology, or presented by Global Warming Art
You will note that there are many periods through the data where the temperatures drop for a few years, only to resume the upward trend.
Your click 4 shows a clear upward trend through the data. It seems to have been plotted with a fourth order polynomial fit, which will always curve down at each end regardless of the data! There is no possible defence for applying such a fit to such data.
In click 5 the claim implied by the stylised graphic seems to be that the leveling of in temperatures in the last few years is due to a multi-decadal oscillation, but that temperatures will none-the-less continue to trend upward at a linear rate. So going by this, you don’t believe that we are heading into a cooler period after all, as is otherwise implied by the way the plot at click one is presented.
The creator of that graphic accepts that the World is warming, in contradiction to many other posts on this website. So is the World warming or isn’t it? The incoherency of anti-AGW position shines through again and again.
For those interested in the Decadal Oscillation mentioned in the last graphic, there is a good discussion of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, along with plots of actual data here. A key point is that it is not periodic or even pseudoperiodic as implied in that last plot.
Craig Allen:
Answer: the climate is cooling. And it is cooling at the same time that CO2 is increasing.
CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming. Its effect is so minimal it is down into the noise. And I notice that you avoided the CO2 question like the plague. I would too, if I were trying to support the repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2 conjecture.
Every one of your inaccurate talking points are garnered from the lame websites that only wish they were voted the “Best Science” site. They all have an opinion, just like you do.
But most uninformed opinions are wrong. So is yours. I have many, many more charts showing that the Earth is cooling. If you like — and if you ask me politely — I will provide them for your edification.
Smokey;
So you think that the World is cooling. Excellent, I think that this is the first time you have made any concrete assertion. By all means please do edify me. I’d be fascinated to see your evidence in favour of this hypothesis; it runs counter to anything I have seen that doesn’t involve cherry-picking or otherwise misrepresenting data.
As for CO2, lets start with this handy and very readable summary of how the greenhouse effect works. As far as I can see, it accords with the views of most of the World’s scientific institutions who express an opinion on these matters.
The contributions of the major greenhouse gasses to the greenhouse effect are
* water vapor = 36–72%
* carbon dioxide = 9–26%
* methane, = 4–9%
* ozone, = 3–7%
As stated in the article, “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.” (Where overlaps refers to the fact that the infrared radiation absorption frequencies of the gasses overlap.)
I understand that in the absence of any greenhouse effect, the Earth would on average be 30ºC cooler.
So the contribution of C02 is significant.
I’m not a physicist, but lets have a go at a quick calculation.
> Take the lower number for C02 = 9%.
> The contribution of C02 to the greenhouse effect is therefore at least 9% of 30ºC = 2.7ºC
> Humanities emissions have caused C02 to increased in concentration by roughly 30% since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
> So prior to the industrial revolution its affect was 25% less than now
> That gives 2.7ºC / 4 = 0.675ºC
> This is roughly the increase in global average temperature that has been observed so far.
> Throwing in feedbacks will account for the the extra temperature rise that scientists say is still on the way as we approach equilibrium.
Bloody hell, I’m stunned that that calculation worked so well!
Over to you Einstein.
Craig Allen wrote: “> This is roughly the increase in global average temperature that has been observed so far.”
Except that “global average temperature” is a meaningless metric. Some places have cooled, some have warmed, some have done neither. Because some may have warmed more than others have cooled does not mean the globe is warming.
Craig Allen labels Prof. Lindzen as a “so-called expert.” That makes Allen a troll, no?
Yes.
An apology to Prof. Lindzen is called for.
Humanities emissions have caused C02 to increased in concentration by roughly 30% since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
So what caused it on previous occasions? Perhaps dinosaurs were more advanced than we thought (about 2000ppm during the Cretaceous period)…
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and avoid descending into a personal back-and-forth. Craig Allen did not label Prof. Lindzen a so-called expert. He said that Lindzen is one of the few who actually has credentials.
We can parse grammar all day but that is exactly what we should not do. Watts Up With That has little chance of winning the weblog award for best grammar. This is a science blog and one of the keys to good science is to treasure disagreement. Always try to think, “How am I wrong?” and your science will be better.
CO2 may currently contribute 9-26% of total global warming but its contribution is virtually maxed out already. The wavelengths it blocks are almost all 100% blocked already. Increasing CO2 won’t make much difference.
Look folks, if we don’t get some sunspots soon, we’ll know who’s right by September. Either the ever increasing CO2 is going to melt ever more polar ice or the increased cloud cover from “the chilling starts” is going to yield further recovery in the ice. There ain’t much middle ground on this one.
Craig Allen (07:17:50) :
..people adhering to anti-AGW hypotheses
But you’re the one with the hypothesis! As Smokey keeps pointing out, we are just testing yours – we don’t have anything to prove.
‘Climate change’ is not news – ‘climate stops changing’ would be.
I must say, for a bunch of people who so liberally fling outright abuse at all manner of well respected climate scientists, James Hansen for example, or the climatologists who run and participate in the RealClimate website you are remarkably sensitive to my applying the relatively mild “so called expert” label to Dr Lindzen.
Dr Lindzen is, I agree, an expert in his field. This makes it all the sadder that he has taken himself so far to the fringes of climate science that he is resorting to the obvious misuse of data as in this article. The ‘so-called’ epithet is more appropriately applied to the sort of people who’s highest claim to expertise is being an expert reviewer of the IPCC reports (given than anyone was welcome to sign up for this). The fact remains that very few people who have any significant publication record in climate science to speak of, disagree with the existence or seriousness of AGW.
James P:
One again I assert that the “we don’t have anything to prove” line just demonstrates how weak your case is. The unwillingness to engage in rational debate, demonstrates that you have no rational case to put. It is effectively an admission that the anti-AGW stance is not scientific.
Craig Allen (08:28:17) :
One again I assert that the “we don’t have anything to prove” line just demonstrates how weak your case is.
Actually, it demonstrates how weak yours is that you cannot prove your case, then resort to “well, what is your alternative?”
The unwillingness to engage in rational debate, demonstrates that you have no rational case to put. It is effectively an admission that the anti-AGW stance is not scientific.
Last time I checked, it is AGW proponents that repeatedly refuse to debate the issue by claiming “the science is settled.” Pot.Kettle.Black.
Mark
To all arguing with Craig Allen:
“It is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into.”
Jonathon Swift I think.
Craig Allen — a concise list of arguments against AGW … citing empirical data and scientific papers … but of course you aren’t ‘really’ interested in such things, are you 😉
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Is it possible that the choice of the 9% figure may have been made made essentially to give the result you were trying to prove?
Frederick Michael (06:07:03) :
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and avoid descending into a personal back-and-forth. Craig Allen did not label Prof. Lindzen a so-called expert
Craig Allen wrote, at 07:17:50:
“Fact of the matter is, that Dr Lindzen is one of the very few so called experts”
QED
Frederick Michael (06:07:03) :
@07:17:50 Craig Allen said: “Fact of the matter is, that Dr Lindzen is one of the very few so called experts…”
See?
“It is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into.”
I think that most of us on here were reasoned into it. I accepted the conventional wisdom (is that the word?) on AGW for some time before stopping to think and read about it, and I changed my mind. I do not do that lightly, but it seems to me that the whole AGW edifice is a house of cards, and I regret that I did not see this sooner.
However, I am slightly comforted by the words of Edward de Bono: “If you never change your mind, why have one?”
Regarding water vapour representing between 26% to 72% of the greenhouse effect …
… the global warming formulae and the climate models are based on greenhouse gases controlling over 95% of the water vapour so it is all greenhouse gases.
The theory is structured so that without the greenhouse gases there would be very little water vapour and very little greenhouse effect. So, water vapour technically represents a few per cent of the greenhouse effect.
If you don’t agree with this, then the global warming formulae have to be rewritten.
Take the log warming formula for CO2 (which is just one of the ten or so GHGs)
Temp C change = 0.75 * [5.0 Ln (1 ppm/280 ppm)]
Temp C change = -21
Now take the same formulae for the other greenhouses and substitute 1 ppm or Zero and you find it adds up to 33C greenhouse effect.
This is also related to the assumption that relative humidity stays more-or-less constant with temperature change. As the greenhouse gases fall to zero, there is very little water vapour left.
I have also found this by doing the math from a different angle and came to the same result.
Logarithmic CO2 warming illustrated once again.
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9652/logwarmingillustratedkn7.png
As you can tell, I am saying the theory is wrong. [But one could go to the places on the planet which have an average temperature of 15C – 33C (or -18C) and find there is very little water vapour there, but there would be enough to say the theory is wrong.]
Folks, I made reference to parsing grammar for a reason. Craig Allen’s reference to the collective “so called experts” and noting that Lindzen is one with real credentials can be interpreted different ways. My point was to NOT try to turn this into a grammar blog but to act like good scientists and avoid getting personal. Many of the AGW blogs are childishly nasty (as is Al Gore with his calling us “holocaust deniers”) and I PLEAD with y’all to show we are better than that.
I fully expect Al Gore and his minions to make it into the history books as the Elmer Gantrys of our generation. In the end, we will look better if we are patient now.