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

Full story: Newsday 48,520
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38442 Aug 25, 2013
krusty the scabby whore wrote:
Continued post...
After studying satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data, John D. McLean, Chris R. de Freitas, and Robert M. Carter[4] concluded that ocean patterns dominate climate change in the tropics. They write, "Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI [Southern Oscillation Index] of 5-7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation."
Petr Chylek and Ulrike Lohmann[5] "use the temperature, carbon dioxide, methane, and dust concentration record from the Vostok ice core to deduce the aerosol radiative forcing during the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition and the climate sensitivity." Their research "suggests a 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2." (A degree Kelvin [K] is equal to a degree Celsius [C].) These values are considerably lower than the sensitivity values estimated by the IPCC.
In another study,[6] the authors use satellite and surface temperature observations to study the effect of aerosols on climate and to examine climate sensitivity. They find "that the climate sensitivity is reduced by at least a factor of 2 when direct and indirect effects of decreasing aerosols are included, compared to the case where the radiative forcing is ascribed only to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide."
Sherwood B. Idso[7] reviews various "natural experiments" that can reveal how sensitive the climate is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and concludes: "Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm [parts per million] doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."
Please quote the source when you paste a quote.

Are you paid to post this stuff, by the way?

You forgot the link, Krusty.

A cut'n'paste from American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American...

The people who offer scientists $10,000 to criticise global warming science.

The people who took $1.6m from ExxonMobil.

What do you get if you have that venal attitude?

A handful of papers from fringe scientists, cracks, ideologues and outright charlatans, papers which do not overturn the evidence for carbon as the cause of global warming because the evidence does not support them, or they have been shown to be wrong.

But they are popular round the denier blogs with people desperate to believe global warming is not true.

It is folks, and the people who tell you otherwise are whoring for the fossil fuel industry, whether they know it or not.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38443 Aug 25, 2013
Correction: cranks.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38444 Aug 25, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the “natural” balance of CO2? How does the Earth know to remove only “natural” CO2 and not remove any human CO2?
Don't ever open a twitter account. When one tries to make a statement in a short sentence & it still flies over the top of your head. What Nature deals with by storing carbon in the ground or with trees,oceans etc is natures way of keeping a balance and a stable climate due to the life cycle with all living things. What it doesn't allow for is man to come along and interfere with all of it. From deforestation, to the mining and burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale and then try and convince us it's still of little or no impact. Pleeeasee !! Even Sarah Palin could grasp that concept.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38445 Aug 25, 2013
Rising levels of carbon dioxide are harming all forms of marine life because the oceans are acidifying as they absorb the gas, German researchers found. Mollusks, corals and a class of creatures called echinoderms that includes starfish and sea urchins are the worst affected by the uptake of CO2 by the seas, according to a study today in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven. The gas forms carbonic acid when it dissolves in the oceans, lowering their pH level.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-25/high...
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#38446 Aug 26, 2013
++++

Only 4% of US Americans want to invade Syria
Full story: Dear Kitty
Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria 's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

+++++++=

Regarding the above statements, THAT IS JUST RIGHT.

All the great people do know better.

----------

TO SYRIA____While US has created the volatile unrest IN Iraq with constant violences for too long, this matter of Iraq points to the position that no US view or action would be permitted TO SYRIA, as it has already done serious failure in Iraq already.

NO MILITARY action is allowed into Syria, by which it will be a serious breaching if doing so.
Thus, UN inspectors are NOT to look for chemical weapons and usage in Syria from now on, for there is invalidity and disqualified of such .

It is problem and trouble causing by looking into search of chemical weapons and usage in Syria.

There are immense wrongs in doing so, besides, it cannot be the issue but the failure direction and cause.
It is counter-productive to seek such myth of getting into the matter of chemical weapons.
Whether they are used or not, has no bearing of any effect whatsoever in the examining the case of Syria.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38447 Aug 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot the link, Krusty.
A cut'n'paste from American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American...
The people who offer scientists $10,000 to criticise global warming science.
The people who took $1.6m from ExxonMobil.
What do you get if you have that venal attitude?
A handful of papers from fringe scientists, cracks, ideologues and outright charlatans, papers which do not overturn the evidence for carbon as the cause of global warming because the evidence does not support them, or they have been shown to be wrong.
But they are popular round the denier blogs with people desperate to believe global warming is not true.
It is folks, and the people who tell you otherwise are whoring for the fossil fuel industry, whether they know it or not.
LOL...I think some of these people would be surprised to find out they are outright charlatans. Susan Solomon and M.J. Ring, D. Lindner, E.F. Cross, R.E. Schlesinger just to name a few. I included papers from both sides of the debate, all showing a lower CO2 sensitivity. The papers are showing overwhelmingly that CO2 sensitivity has been overestimated and it is reported that the in the IPCC AR5, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped.

I didn't get these information from any one site and in fact I found the information on water vapor, this little nugget appeared in the article:

"Jeff Knight, a climate modeller at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, last year led an analysis of temperature trends from the year 2000 and found that current global climate models are able to reproduce such short-term events without a hitch. He says that the models produced an extended period of relatively flat temperatures in one out of every eight decades — although none of them produced a flat trend beyond 15 years."

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/n...

Exactly what I have been saying, models have not predicted this 15-year standstill.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38449 Aug 26, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Rising levels of carbon dioxide are harming all forms of marine life because the oceans are acidifying as they absorb the gas, German researchers found. Mollusks, corals and a class of creatures called echinoderms that includes starfish and sea urchins are the worst affected by the uptake of CO2 by the seas, according to a study today in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven. The gas forms carbonic acid when it dissolves in the oceans, lowering their pH level.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-25/high...
This story is based on modeling and of course we know that climate modelers can say anything and not be held accountable. So did you read the fine print in the article?

"He cautioned that the study has limitations because “you cannot do sufficiently long studies to really mimic what will happen in 50 years.”

So basically this article was meaningless.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38450 Aug 26, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't ever open a twitter account. When one tries to make a statement in a short sentence & it still flies over the top of your head. What Nature deals with by storing carbon in the ground or with trees,oceans etc is natures way of keeping a balance and a stable climate due to the life cycle with all living things. What it doesn't allow for is man to come along and interfere with all of it. From deforestation, to the mining and burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale and then try and convince us it's still of little or no impact. Pleeeasee !! Even Sarah Palin could grasp that concept.
This is what Ozritz said:

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

I do believe Ozritz is the one who should stay away from Twitter.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38451 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
Continued post...
After studying satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data, John D. McLean, Chris R. de Freitas, and Robert M. Carter[4] concluded that ocean patterns dominate climate change in the tropics. They write, "Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI [Southern Oscillation Index] of 5-7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation."
Petr Chylek and Ulrike Lohmann[5] "use the temperature, carbon dioxide, methane, and dust concentration record from the Vostok ice core to deduce the aerosol radiative forcing during the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition and the climate sensitivity." Their research "suggests a 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2." (A degree Kelvin [K] is equal to a degree Celsius [C].) These values are considerably lower than the sensitivity values estimated by the IPCC.
In another study,[6] the authors use satellite and surface temperature observations to study the effect of aerosols on climate and to examine climate sensitivity. They find "that the climate sensitivity is reduced by at least a factor of 2 when direct and indirect effects of decreasing aerosols are included, compared to the case where the radiative forcing is ascribed only to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide."
Sherwood B. Idso[7] reviews various "natural experiments" that can reveal how sensitive the climate is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and concludes: "Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm [parts per million] doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."
Let's take just one of these nice fellows at random. Sherwood B. Idso (born June 12, 1942) is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Here is a glance at his fine organization.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

Why should we give these people more credence than independent scientists?
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#38452 Aug 26, 2013
++++++++

Syria: U.N. chemical weapons team comes under sniper fire
By Frederik Pleitgen, Hamdi Alkhshali and Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 7:14 AM EDT, Mon August 26, 2013


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
An explosion occurs near the site U.N. inspectors want to visit
Ban Ki-Moon: chemical weapons use is crime against humanity
Syrian government to allow U.N. inspectors access to site after long delay
U.S. bulking up naval presence near Syria

Damascus, Syria (CNN)--[Breaking news update 7:13 a.m. ET]
Sniper fire hit a vehicle used by a U.N. chemical weapons investigation team in Syria multiple times on Monday, according to the United Nations. The team "returned safely back to the government checkpoint," a U.N. statement said. The team is replacing the vehicle and will return to the area, it said.

U.N. chief: Chemical weapons use in Syria must be punished

++++++

==========
Related to the above report, it is useless for UN inspectors to be in Syria.

UN chief could be disposed and asked to step aside immediately, as people worldwide do not want any harms and destruction imposed on them.


Because there are those who fall in the prey and scheme of chemical weapons usage, the Muslim rebels already have chemical weapons usage and stage orchestration of using chemical weapons to poison others to make the show, so that others would go for falling into the trap, in order that western forces might get into the prey.
The number of people who really die from chemical weapons is just a number as how they make it up and call such number, yet it is small make-up number RANGING FROM 100 TO A FEW HUNDRED, compared to the overall larger number of tolls

THIS IS HAZARDOUS when UN inspectors are in Syria, as rebels might/would further poison others behind inspectors back, so that they can stage further falsehood.
If Syria regime would use chemical weapons before, there is no case that they could come up with substantial facts and evidences to prove it.
If few die in the internal civil unrest for so long in Syria due to chemical weapons, one does not expect that many people would die from chemical weapons if the unrest goes on.

But the bottom line is that if any military action were into Syria, the large scale of devastation warfare to a lot more civilians being killed would be very destructive from the beginning to the final end. The important factors are that Western forces might not be capable of overcoming the unpredictable damages if military action were taken, facing world non-allowance and disputes. Yet, the course for this very large scale of action might lead to making another troublesome current Iraq-like situation of bigger than Iraq for long, but definitely world tension and antagonism toward US, disputes among UN members and global backlashng, as this must be rejected and deterred.

There are no merits but all damages by falling into the trickery prey of insurgent rebels and others in orchestrating to start with--it needs to stop those by now.

THEREFORE, UN IS DESTRUCTIVE IN ITS ENDEAVOR SO FAR BY FALLING INTO THE TRAP. It is better for UN inspectors to leave Syria at once, so that rebels can no longer make up falsehood. As Long as people do not get tricked by rebels, then the constructive way is to view and deter rebel groups as they cause lots of people destruction and damages by making people of the world doing very destructive things to themselves, and UN as well, and this is destroying global people's lives and resources around the world.

UN chief must be disposed and asked to step aside immediately if he still puts inspectors in Syria and continues with the jargon of chemical weapons,, as people worldwide do not want any harms and damages imposed on them.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38453 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the “natural” balance of CO2? How does the Earth know to remove only “natural” CO2 and not remove any human CO2?
Misuse of the word 'natural'. Is that all you got?

The issue is OPTIMAL for US. Natural is anything that happens including 'natural disasters'. This one is an ARTIFICIAL disaster because we move from the 'optimal'.

WHY is is optimal? Because we have invested so much money in the 'stable climate' predicating the risks on what has gone before. Now, most of that investment is lost or at risk due to our CHANGING the rules.

Even YOU should be able to understand that. But of course, your 'thing' is to be permanently ignorant and asking the same wrong and stupid questions all the time.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#38454 Aug 26, 2013
Good news for you warmers!!! Tropical waves are now starting to move off the coast of Africa. With any luck one will turn into something and run up the east coast. Look for things to get busy in the next week or so!!!

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38455 Aug 26, 2013
flack wrote:
Good news for you warmers!!! Tropical waves are now starting to move off the coast of Africa. With any luck one will turn into something and run up the east coast. Look for things to get busy in the next week or so!!!
And why would that be good news for anyone? DUM DUM.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38456 Aug 26, 2013
flack wrote:
Good news for you warmers!!! Tropical waves are now starting to move off the coast of Africa. With any luck one will turn into something and run up the east coast. Look for things to get busy in the next week or so!!!
You can bet they're praying for a CAT5, if one takes out D.C. everybody would smile.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38457 Aug 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take just one of these nice fellows at random. Sherwood B. Idso (born June 12, 1942) is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Here is a glance at his fine organization.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
Why should we give these people more credence than independent scientists?
I find that people who promote conspiracy theories like to deny the science.

Let's see what Idso said:

Sherwood B. Idso[7] reviews various "natural experiments" that can reveal how sensitive the climate is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and concludes: "Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm [parts per million] doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."

Now let's see what the new IPCC report has to say according to an interview with Alexei Kokorin, head of WWF-Russia Climate Program:

Whereas earlier it was believed that man’s impact on the climate was gradual, and that the situation was deteriorating in a gradual way, now – in contrast to the previous report, which was being put together seven years ago – much more information has been obtained on ocean cycles and other natural fluctuations. Scientists have realized that today, in the 2010s, man’s impact is being mitigated by natural cycles that are offsetting the impact made on the climate by man. This situation will hold for about another twenty years. But it is completely clear that after that, this mitigation will yield to escalation.

So, the IPCC has been telling us for the last 25 years that temperatures will rise 0.2 C per decade. Yet that has not been the case. They never predicted a 15-year standstill in temperatures. let alone a standstill or even some cooling until 2030. Idso is predicting that there will be little net warming, which is now in line with the new IPCC prediction. On top of that, there are a vast amount of papers from both sides of the debate lowering CO2 climate sensitivity and questioning the feedback mechanism of water vapor and also papers on the sun's impact on temperatures. So you are the one promoting conspiracy theories to avoid the new scientific literature emerging in the field of climate science.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38458 Aug 26, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
You can bet they're praying for a CAT5, if one takes out D.C. everybody would smile.
Science doesn't forecast specific weather events. You could have a mild season or a Cat 7 depending on chance (semi-chaotic). But the probability of a major catastrophe keeps going up. Maybe next year. Maybe ten years. But there will be MORE extreme weather than previously.

The issue isn't the reality of AGW and climate change but the 'head in the sands' attitude of denial who don't want to see the facts or spin them into silly red herrings.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38459 Aug 26, 2013
flack wrote:
Good news for you warmers!!! Tropical waves are now starting to move off the coast of Africa. With any luck one will turn into something and run up the east coast. Look for things to get busy in the next week or so!!!
Another reason OzRitz should stay away from Twitter:

OzRitz: "One wonders what the steam roller will be with warming, one hurricane too many or the cost of living."

Maybe this is the one hurricane too many. OzRitz never got back to me when I asked what is one hurricane too many, as I think I need to know since I live in Florida.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38460 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't forecast specific weather events. You could have a mild season or a Cat 7 depending on chance (semi-chaotic). But the probability of a major catastrophe keeps going up. Maybe next year. Maybe ten years. But there will be MORE extreme weather than previously.
The issue isn't the reality of AGW and climate change but the 'head in the sands' attitude of denial who don't want to see the facts or spin them into silly red herrings.
We now have Cat 7 hurricanes?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38461 Aug 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take just one of these nice fellows at random. Sherwood B. Idso (born June 12, 1942) is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Here is a glance at his fine organization.
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
Why should we give these people more credence than independent scientists?
Independent scientists?

Who exactly are these independent scientists? And what makes them independent?

defn:--
1. free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.
2. not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

Do tell... this should be interesting.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38462 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I find that people who promote conspiracy theories like to deny the science.
Let's see what Idso said:
Sherwood B. Idso[7] reviews various "natural experiments" that can reveal how sensitive the climate is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and concludes: "Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm [parts per million] doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."
Now let's see what the new IPCC report has to say according to an interview with Alexei Kokorin, head of WWF-Russia Climate Program:
Whereas earlier it was believed that man’s impact on the climate was gradual, and that the situation was deteriorating in a gradual way, now – in contrast to the previous report, which was being put together seven years ago – much more information has been obtained on ocean cycles and other natural fluctuations. Scientists have realized that today, in the 2010s, man’s impact is being mitigated by natural cycles that are offsetting the impact made on the climate by man. This situation will hold for about another twenty years. But it is completely clear that after that, this mitigation will yield to escalation.
So, the IPCC has been telling us for the last 25 years that temperatures will rise 0.2 C per decade. Yet that has not been the case. They never predicted a 15-year standstill in temperatures. let alone a standstill or even some cooling until 2030. Idso is predicting that there will be little net warming, which is now in line with the new IPCC prediction. On top of that, there are a vast amount of papers from both sides of the debate lowering CO2 climate sensitivity and questioning the feedback mechanism of water vapor and also papers on the sun's impact on temperatures. So you are the one promoting conspiracy theories to avoid the new scientific literature emerging in the field of climate science.
Of course there is no vested interest involved....is there?

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min red and right 1,143,608
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min loose cannon 180,803
Dear Abby 11/24/14 47 min Mister Tonka 15
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Yumpin Yimminy 68,789
Super Waste by Post Office 1 hr CallWaltJacobson 2
After Ferguson the Protest Should Move to Chicago. 1 hr It_sThenigahFault 5
The Brown family are good christian Godly peopl... 1 hr BALONEY Hes THUG 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr primetime justice 98,684
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:09 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:09AM
2014 Week 13 Fantasy Football Quarterback Rankings
NBC Sports 9:38 AM
Colts' practice squad adds Griff Whalen, sprinter Jeff Demps
Bleacher Report10:47 AM
Can Bears Emulate Pats' Successful Gameplan vs. Lions?
Bleacher Report12:46 PM
5 Bold Predictions for Washington Redskins' Week 13 Matchup
Bleacher Report 2:37 PM
Cards Sign Veteran RB Michael Bush