Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
32,801 - 32,820 of 45,874 Comments Last updated 37 min ago
Reddy Kilowatt

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34758
Mar 26, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
Hey Teddy the unready for the public ..
Read my previous post.
Translation: "I got nothing. I've been owned"

Your previous post?

Flushed. Took two flushes, in fact, it was so rancid.

Do get right back to us with your superior solution to save the planet, mmm-k?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34759
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
I'm not a scientist.
Stop telling me what to wish for....... relief from SB's bullying posts.
I hope I make myself clear.....
My opinion of science has some worth.
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" clearly is & wishes to be a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4 time alleged & 3 time proud threatener. brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" isn't a scientist because he couldn't even get upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course, the science opinion of brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has no worth, since he has mathematics errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34760
Mar 26, 2013
 
Teddy is rynning a scam with Reddy ...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34761
Mar 26, 2013
 
Correction ... Teddy IS running a scam with Reddy.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34762
Mar 26, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Wikipedia scores its pages, the quality is listed as 'Start Class' Here's what the score means:
"The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted."
.
<quoted text>That's right, only humans can perform experiments. Experiments can be done in the field, in a hospital or in the lab; the location isn't important but the procedure to control variables is important.
.
<quoted text>The word 'goal' means the experiment is deliberate.
I'll repeat the definition so you can learn more:
"An experiment is a orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. "
Sorry, Charlie, only the best deniers can answer questions correctly (some of the time).

Recall Jane Goodall's account of a chimp experimenting with the best way to get plenty of those tasty termites by inserting and re-inserting a stick into the mound and licking off the bugs which clung to it when withdrawn.

If I felt like researching or if I had the time, I'd cite a few more instances of animals conducting experiments for your dumb ass, but that's one good example. You've probably forgotten (or maybe you never did it) the ways in which children experiment in life, in order to learn, and without a rules-master like you overseeing them.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34763
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>"A natural experiment is an empirical study in which the experimental conditions (i.e., which units receive which treatment) are determined by nature or by other factors out of the control of the experimenters and yet the treatment assignment process is arguably exogenous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experime...
So now do you understand the variety of what we call experiments?

Or are you still as dogmatic and restricted as any other conservative off the street?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34764
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Teddy is rynning a scam with Reddy ...
Brain has called in reinforcements....

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34765
Mar 26, 2013
 
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, as can all fast neutron reactors.
Imagine the total waste generated by your electric power consumption over your entire life fitting in a soda can. That's a sustainable future.
Those are viable reactor designs also - let the market decide.
<quoted text>
Align your mind, dude - your argument is letting perfection be the enemy of the good. Irrational.
Surely you are not suggesting that these activities are even within an order of magnitude of approaching the carbon intensity of the fuel cycle activities associated with our present coal-based or natural gas-based electric power base load generation industry?
Not a wrong point, but it's a facile and fallacious rap when not applied equally to other "greeie" wind and solar technologies ON THE SAME SCALE. How many millions of wilderness acres are you willing to blight with turbines and solar panel arrays having in order to power a morden info-based society of 300 million? How many millions of tons of highly toxic metals are you comfortable seeing mined and released from manufacture of photovoltaic panels and batteries?
It would be better if we could do more mining & construction actvities with lower carbon energy. Hopefully it'll be possble in the future.

There are some green(ish) technologies that are already price-competitive with fossil fuels: geothermal, hydropower, wind. And that's without a carbon tax or carbon sequestraion, which will certainly be necessary in the future.

Considerable research is still being done on other forms of hydropower (current, wave, tide, etc). Photovoltaic power is still a ways off, but passive solar heating systems work quite well.

Actually, lots of birds die in collisions with skyscrapers & motor vehicles; it isn't just windmills that kill them. And I HOPE you're not putting much trust in the journalistic standards of the telegraph.co.uk. They often don't "rise" to the level of the National Enquirer.

Lastly, if we could ever mine the Helium-3 in the lunar mare & develop fusion that emitted few neutrons, we'd have barely conceivable amounts of energy available. The reactions without D2O run hotter, though.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34766
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

By John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News

Most of the sea ice that forms each fall and winter in the Arctic now melts each spring and summer, a recent change that is impacting global patterns of weather and trade as well as the U.S. military's strategic planning, experts told reporters during a briefing Tuesday.

"There are tremendous two-way and multiple interactions between the Arctic and the rest of the world," retired Rear Adm. David Titley said during the teleconference organized by Climate Nexus, a group trying to raise awareness about climate change.

Experts tied the melting ice in the Arctic to the recent spate of stormy winter weather in parts of the U.S. and Europe. They also noted that the prospect of ice-free summers in the Arctic as soon as 2030 is already impacting international trade and U.S. Navy plans to protect Arctic resources.

The briefing was held the day after the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced that the Arctic sea ice reached its maximum reach for the year on March 15, covering 5.84 million square miles. This is the sixth lowest maximum sea ice coverage in the 35-year satellite record.

"The last 10 years have been the lowest 10 years," said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the NSIDC. He added that while this year was low, "we actually have the largest growth of ice in our record from the minimum to the maximum" primarily because the ice was recovering from the record low in 2012.

In addition to the shrinking extent of sea ice, the remaining ice is thinning perhaps twice as fast as the observed ice extent, noted Wieslaw Maslowski, an oceanographer at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >

Those damn Navy liberals!
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34767
Mar 27, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, I know better. Teddy is WRONG again... I'm puzzled that Teddy is not ready to read:
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are part of a new generation of nuclear power plant designs being developed in several countries.[from Wikipedia, Teddy's link]
Read: "designs being developed"
So an SMR, even just one, is nonexistent. Of course I was RIGHT!
There goes Teddy's credibility move into the horsecrap pile...:-)
More and more that’s all the "spacedoutblues” has more and more diarrheas.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34768
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reuters

KANGERLUSSUAQ, Greenland — On the Arctic Circle, a chef is growing the kind of vegetables and herbs - potatoes, thyme, tomatoes, green peppers - more fitting for a suburban garden in a temperate zone than a land of Northern Lights, glaciers and musk oxen.

Some Inuit hunters are finding reindeer fatter than ever thanks to more grazing on this frozen tundra, and for some, there is no longer a need to trek hours to find wild herbs.

Welcome to climate change in Greenland, where locals say longer and warmer summers mean the country can grow the kind of crops unheard of years ago.

"Every year we try new things," said Ernst, who even managed to grow a handful of strawberries that he served to some surprised Scandinavian royals. "I first came here in 1999 and no-one would have dreamed of doing this. But now the summer days seem warmer, and longer."

Major commercial crop production is still in its infancy. But it is a sign of changes here that Greenland's government set up a commission this year to study how a changing climate may help farmers increase agricultural production and replace expensive imported foods.

<<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<

So, how come Greenland's government believes the hoax?

Maybe because it's not a hoax?
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34769
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Maybe it's the natural cycle of climate change. They really don't know.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34770
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
Maybe it's the natural cycle of climate change. They really don't know.
Maybe you're a donkey. We really don't know.
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34772
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Correction ... Teddy IS running a scam with Reddy.
Translation: "I STILL got nothing. DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!!"

Still waiting to hear your green, carbon-free, renewable, sustainable, economically viable technology solution for replacing this nation of 300 million's carbon-fired base load power generation capacity any faster than a crash program to replace fossil-fuel power generating stations with SMRs.

C'mon, Mr. "Scientist" - the planet is dying every day you sit by playing internet hero fake "scientist" pontificating and calling people "deniers." Show us how committed and clear-minded you are about actually DOING SOMETHING practical and effective about AGW on a scale and timeframe that matches your earnest AGW jihadi rhetoric.
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34773
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be better if we could do more mining & construction actvities with lower carbon energy. Hopefully it'll be possble in the future.
Certainly - with hydrogen fuel-cell-powered equipment.

Only practical on the scale required in a future powered by SMRs. Nuclear = the gateway to the hydrogen economy.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some green(ish) technologies that are already price-competitive with fossil fuels: geothermal, hydropower, wind. And that's without a carbon tax or carbon sequestraion, which will certainly be necessary in the future.
Considerable research is still being done on other forms of hydropower (current, wave, tide, etc). Photovoltaic power is still a ways off, but passive solar heating systems work quite well.
Actually, lots of birds die in collisions with skyscrapers & motor vehicles; it isn't just windmills that kill them. And I HOPE you're not putting much trust in the journalistic standards of the telegraph.co.uk. They often don't "rise" to the level of the National Enquirer.
C'mon - you're just farting around with pie-in-the-sky toy technologies at the margins. Indulging in avoidance behavior. These are all perfectly valid "niche" technologies that will each always have their relatively small role to play in the overall energy supply scheme, sure.

But let's please stay focused on the much larger & immediate imperative of saving the planet from carbon heat-death. None of these "greenie" "renewable" technologies are capable of replacing the current 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 millions, and they never will be. All forms of non-hydro "renewable" generation, despite massive subsidies, currently produce less than 10% of the carbon-based generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY to save the planet.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/elec...

Even if the massively large-scale energy storage technologies required to replace carbon-fueled generation with unreliable/unpredictable wind & solar existed (which they do not, not even in concept), the land areas required for implementation on the required scale makes these options completely infeasible economically and politically. Which 48 MILLION acres of land do you think it's ever going to be ok to permanently ravage, blight & pave over with solar collector arrays?

If your truly serious about saving the planet from death by AGW NOW, you will consign these pipe-dreams of 'green' energy to the side-show status they warrant.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Lastly, if we could ever mine the Helium-3 in the lunar mare & develop fusion that emitted few neutrons, we'd have barely conceivable amounts of energy available. The reactions without D2O run hotter, though.
Again - let's please try to stay real here. We have an immediate planetary emergency on our hands, and we need REAL solutions for large-scale crash implemenation NOW - not pie-in-the-sky science fiction.

1) Earth will have died a planetary death by AGW centuries before this will ever become a reality

2) Even IF a practical fusion reactor is ever developed, please re-read my previous explanation of the fundamental physics and geometric reasons why fusion reactors can NEVER be as thermally efficient as (& accordingly cost-competitive with) fission reactors for electric power generation via a working fluid, given they will have ALL the same radwaste issues and costs to deal with.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34774
Mar 27, 2013
 
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly - with hydrogen fuel-cell-powered equipment.
Only practical on the scale required in a future powered by SMRs. Nuclear = the gateway to the hydrogen economy.
<quoted text>
C'mon - you're just farting around with pie-in-the-sky toy technologies at the margins. Indulging in avoidance behavior. These are all perfectly valid "niche" technologies that will each always have their relatively small role to play in the overall energy supply scheme, sure.
But let's please stay focused on the much larger & immediate imperative of saving the planet from carbon heat-death. None of these "greenie" "renewable" technologies are capable of replacing the current 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 millions, and they never will be. All forms of non-hydro "renewable" generation, despite massive subsidies, currently produce less than 10% of the carbon-based generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY to save the planet.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/elec...
Even if the massively large-scale energy storage technologies required to replace carbon-fueled generation with unreliable/unpredictable wind & solar existed (which they do not, not even in concept), the land areas required for implementation on the required scale makes these options completely infeasible economically and politically. Which 48 MILLION acres of land do you think it's ever going to be ok to permanently ravage, blight & pave over with solar collector arrays?
If your truly serious about saving the planet from death by AGW NOW, you will consign these pipe-dreams of 'green' energy to the side-show status they warrant.
<quoted text>
Again - let's please try to stay real here. We have an immediate planetary emergency on our hands, and we need REAL solutions for large-scale crash implemenation NOW - not pie-in-the-sky science fiction.
1) Earth will have died a planetary death by AGW centuries before this will ever become a reality
2) Even IF a practical fusion reactor is ever developed, please re-read my previous explanation of the fundamental physics and geometric reasons why fusion reactors can NEVER be as thermally efficient as (& accordingly cost-competitive with) fission reactors for electric power generation via a working fluid, given they will have ALL the same radwaste issues and costs to deal with.
In general, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you say. Still, by far the easiest thing to do is to continue to make major efforts in energy efficiency. Conservation can still yield huge improvements.

Just because green technologies now remain problematic doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. I've read about underwater turbines in the East River that just need to be strengthened, but are capable of enormous power generation. If wave, current &/or tidal hydropower technologies could be perfected, there are tremendous amounts of energy available.

Solar (photovoltaic) power is reportedly on a "Moore's Law" type trajectory when it's rapidly getting cheaper & better. It may yet be an excellent option.

The other thing about nuclear is that we REALLY need modern types of reactors that do a much better job of limiting waste, but these also will take long lead-in times for research & construction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

The Chinese want to get to the Moon by 2020. They have stated openly that one of their reasons is He-3. If we can get to low-neutron-flux reactions, they'll be easier to contain. I wouldn't be so confident that it'll be hundreds of years before controlled fusion can be a reality.
Reddy Kilowatt

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34775
Mar 27, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you say. Still, by far the easiest thing to do is to continue to make major efforts in energy efficiency. Conservation can still yield huge improvements.
Sure - and those efficiencies, driven as they already are by market forces, are already being exploited and realized to the max in all future worlds, whether AGW-afflicted or not.

The problem is, this is not a viable strategy for saving the planet - it's denial. We cannot "conserve" our way out of the need for a large-scale crash carbon-fueled generation replacement program.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because green technologies now remain problematic doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. I've read about underwater turbines in the East River that just need to be strengthened, but are capable of enormous power generation. If wave, current &/or tidal hydropower technologies could be perfected, there are tremendous amounts of energy available.
Yep, of course - but you're still clutching at straws, diddling around with toys at the margins. These are 'local' special niche solutions that take small bites at best out of the problem, but that even in the most Pollyannish projections cannot even come close to replacing all carbon-fueled generation near-term. We don't have the time for "perfecting" all these blue-sky concepts. If you are truly committed to saving the planet from AGW heat death, you need to reach for the big iron, PROVEN means, and NOW.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Solar (photovoltaic) power is reportedly on a "Moore's Law" type trajectory when it's rapidly getting cheaper & better. It may yet be an excellent option.
But it clearly ISN'T NOW. TODAY. And it won't be in the short timeframe we have to ACT. It remains a niche solution, that can never replace more than a fraction of the 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 million.

Pinning hopes on solar and wind is fiddling while the planet burns.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The other thing about nuclear is that we REALLY need modern types of reactors that do a much better job of limiting waste, but these also will take long lead-in times for research & construction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
Already readily available & ready for large-scale commercial application. We've been running fast-neuron breeder reactors that recycle spent fuel & generate little waste for over 50 years. This part is mature technology.

What's needed is a firm kick in the ass of the federal gov't & bureacracy to get with the program, declare a national emergency, and start acting like the planet really is melting down. Get these standard SMR reactors licensed so they can be financed & built.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The Chinese want to get to the Moon by 2020. They have stated openly that one of their reasons is He-3. If we can get to low-neutron-flux reactions, they'll be easier to contain. I wouldn't be so confident that it'll be hundreds of years before controlled fusion can be a reality.
Don't bet the ranch on it, amigo. You don't know the Chinese. They don't have anyone to steal the know-how from this time - they're on their own. Just like white men can't dance, the Chinese nation (under the dead hand of the CCP) can't innovate. Never. Gonna. Hoppen. Sorry.

Self-sustaining fusion? Sure - it'll happen eventually. In the lab. At very small scale, and GINORMOUS expense. Never as a commercially viable or competive source of power, however - fission reactors will always be FAR cheaper and more reliable. Let me know, to take just one example, when you figure out how they've EVER going to contain the radioactive tritium emissions from this imaginary commercial fusion reactor, when the stuff diffuses right through steel...
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34776
Mar 27, 2013
 
Neal Caffrey wrote:
Al gore is scumbag that loves gay muslim azz
You're tryin' to hurt my feelin's aren't you?

Bring the stretcher over here, another one's been GORED!
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34777
Mar 27, 2013
 
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly - with hydrogen fuel-cell-powered equipment.
Only practical on the scale required in a future powered by SMRs. Nuclear = the gateway to the hydrogen economy.
<quoted text>
C'mon - you're just farting around with pie-in-the-sky toy technologies at the margins. Indulging in avoidance behavior. These are all perfectly valid "niche" technologies that will each always have their relatively small role to play in the overall energy supply scheme, sure.
But let's please stay focused on the much larger & immediate imperative of saving the planet from carbon heat-death. None of these "greenie" "renewable" technologies are capable of replacing the current 7.5 BILLION kWh per day currently being generated by carbon-fired plants for a power-hungry nation of 300 millions, and they never will be. All forms of non-hydro "renewable" generation, despite massive subsidies, currently produce less than 10% of the carbon-based generation we need to replace IMMEDIATELY to save the planet.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/elec...
Even if the massively large-scale energy storage technologies required to replace carbon-fueled generation with unreliable/unpredictable wind & solar existed (which they do not, not even in concept), the land areas required for implementation on the required scale makes these options completely infeasible economically and politically. Which 48 MILLION acres of land do you think it's ever going to be ok to permanently ravage, blight & pave over with solar collector arrays?
If your truly serious about saving the planet from death by AGW NOW, you will consign these pipe-dreams of 'green' energy to the side-show status they warrant.
<quoted text>
Again - let's please try to stay real here. We have an immediate planetary emergency on our hands, and we need REAL solutions for large-scale crash implemenation NOW - not pie-in-the-sky science fiction.
1) Earth will have died a planetary death by AGW centuries before this will ever become a reality
2) Even IF a practical fusion reactor is ever developed, please re-read my previous explanation of the fundamental physics and geometric reasons why fusion reactors can NEVER be as thermally efficient as (& accordingly cost-competitive with) fission reactors for electric power generation via a working fluid, given they will have ALL the same radwaste issues and costs to deal with.
The first car didn't do 235 mph.

The first flight of an airplane was not transcontinental.

The first space mission did not go to Mars.

These things take time. When you grow up, you'll understand.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34778
Mar 27, 2013
 
John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News

When it's hot outside, people crank up air conditioners that usually suck electricity from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants at the root of human-caused global warming. This seems like a recipe for disaster, but it's more sustainable than living in a cold climate and cranking up the heat, a new paper suggests.

"The traditional view that living in hot desert areas is not sustainable should be re-examined," Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told NBC News. "Because my data suggest that from this point of view — mainly a climate control point of view — living in very cold areas is less sustainable than hot areas."

He compared the energy demands for indoor heating and cooling in Minneapolis, Minn., the coldest metropolitan area in the country, with those in Miami, Fla., the warmest big city. He found the demands are 3.5 times greater in Minnesota.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><>

So it seems that even civilization finds a way to balance with Nature.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

91 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 min Terry rigsby 48,996
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,083,176
Abby 7-30 6 min Mister Tonka 7
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min Frank 175,081
Amy 7-30 23 min loose cannon 7
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr scirocco 68,436
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 2 hr newpoly 1,867
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr edogxxx 97,574
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••