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

Full story: Newsday 49,191
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38990 Sep 8, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"motheaten" couldn't get a science or mathematics degree. Suspect, "motheaten" earned no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "motheaten" looks from the outside, in.
Yeah, science has much more authority than "motheaten".
LOL

Why don't you run off to your Subaru forums and brag some more on your gas mileage.

Here, you're just a useful idiot for the cause.

But you may enjoy that (being an idiot, not useful).

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#38991 Sep 8, 2013
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38992 Sep 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...
The Mail, Brain_Dead? This is where you get your science?

They say almost a million square miles more which they can say because they rounded off 580,000 to "almost a million square miles".

Note that even they admit to 2012 being a record low.

And still, you do not get it, that ice extent is a different thing from ice mass, particularly in relation to the remaining "old ice", that which is thicker than one or two years will give you.

But we know, that for you, it's any port in a storm....

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38993 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Otherwise the fossil fuel funded propaganda would not have to be made as the corporations could put pressure directly on the scientists.
But that won't happen anyway. The Tobacco science could only work while all research was done by CORPORATE scientists. Once independent research was started, it showed a major discrepancy in results between independent and corporate science papers that blew the lid off.
Another good point, tobacco science saw TV ads showing real doctors in white coats with a stethoscope around their neck puffing away telling the audience how smoking was good for you.
It's no different with denier science, same crap different day.
What is worse, some of them actually know they are lying to promote self interest.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38994 Sep 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
By Hayley Dixon9:55AM BST 08 Sep 2013
There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...
You're an idiot. I'm not. This is where we differ.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38995 Sep 8, 2013
Climate scientists examining a dozen extreme weather events from 2012 found that manmade global warming likely contributed to at least half of them, including a record-breaking deadly heat wave in the U.S. The international report released on Thursday offers a demonstration of the new capabilities that scientists are developing in an emerging,complex area of climate science known as “extreme event attribution.”

On the whole, the scientists found that, as suspected, climate change has already increased the odds of and altered the characteristics of some extreme events around the planet, and that is expected to continue and grow worse. However, the report also illustrated the limitations of attribution studies.

The international report, which was jointly released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.K. Met Office, included 19 separate studies on 12 extreme events, ranging from the U.S. drought to flooding in New Zealand. The study results, some of which contradict one another, reflect the emerging nature of the science. Scientists employed multiple ways of analyzing a given event, with each approach leading researchers to make different conclusions.

Climate Central
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#38996 Sep 8, 2013
+++++

Benghazi Backlash Attack Anniversary Hurts Obama's Syria Strike Push
Full story: Fox News
The Obama administration's effort Sunday to win support for a punitive military strike on Syria is facing opposition and criticism in part because of its handling of the fatal Benghazi terror attacks, which occurred one year ago Wednesday.

++++++++++

OBAMA engineered THE Benghazi US embassy attacked by rebel terrorists, as Obama did overthrowing regime in Libya.
By reviewing in terms of doing it or not doing it in Libya, it was still not to do that as better, for what Obama did by doing regime change makes US gain nothing but had embassy loss and beyond.

That says every move of Obama is disastrous, as now Obama is talking about to even Syria.
What is so wrong with Obama to want to strike Syria to give US critical damages?
What is the matter of Obama that he can't sleep because of that, that he wants to hit Syria?

But the question is to ask if it is not to strike Syria, does that mean tacos will be poisoned?

If were to ask between to strike and not to strike, what is the problem with that by not striking?

To look into strike or not to strike: If were to strike, the problems are immense obviously and the further destructive consequences to disaster are there by looking into the Iraq case, as that is enough to tell---as never learn from Iraq --after Iraq war, the image is very bad and negative, to go about the same on Syria is almost burnt (no any sort of evidence is any accepted like Colin Powell saying satellite map), to hit and strike as Clinton did and ran by doing so-called degrading Iraq WMD facilities proves bad, as there were no WMD after all--but this time is very troublesome for US to just hit alone and run.

This time, global forces are very much against US strike, and unlike Bush era, the stiff way of propelling against US strike is advancing on the planet, as it is determined US will suffer and take losses.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38997 Sep 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And most of his post. It is just a 'here's some confusing literature taken out of context'. You decide what it means.
For example. "Oh lord….that is so 2006. The IPCC is finally catching up to the science of 2006. Now if they could only catch up to the science of 2013."
The science of 2013 is not well enough supported by secondary studies and 'rebuttals' so of COURSE the IPCC, charged with presenting the 'known' science to which there is 'very likely' or 'likely' consequences must use five year old stuff. It takes that time for science to check 'preliminary results'. They would be irresponsible to take studies from the present year that have yet to be checked by other scientists.
So let me get this straight…a 15-year standstill in global temperatures is not enough time for a trend, but 8 years of satellite data is enough to determine a trend in acceleration of ice loss.

So the IPCC knowing that 8 years of satellite data is not enough to go with a trend goes ahead with the most alarmist prediction of the old science of 2006, but doesn’t comment on the contradictory papers that were published after 2006.

2010:
The original GRACE-based estimates indicated as much as 1,500 billion tonnes ice loss just from Greenland in the period 2003-2009 - equivalent to a global sea-level rise of over 4mm on its own. However it has since become clear that these numbers weren't properly corrected for the phenomenon of "rebound", where the Earth's crust rises as ice is removed. GPS precise-location devices fixed to bedrock outcrops in Antarctica showed this last year, but nobody was sure how bad the errors were. Vermeersen and his colleagues' calculations show that as little as 500 gigatonnes of ice or even less could have melted from Greenland during 2003-2009, translating into less than 2mm of sea-level rise. In the case of Greenland, it could be that the current estimates are triple what they should be.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/07/revis...

2012:

Despite warnings by climate scientists that the massive Greenland ice sheet is melting rapidly into the sea, researchers in Denmark say that scenario is far from certain. Their new study of Greenland’s glacial ice sheet reports that twice in the past 30 years, major melting events have been followed by periods when melting stopped and the ice sheet stabilized. The authors say the rapid melting that has made headlines in recent weeks also is likely to slow or stop. Their conclusion also contradicts widely-reported predictions that the accelerating ice melt will trigger a significant rise in global sea levels.

http://www.voanews.com/content/study_predicts...

And this from 2012:

While vast quantities of ice melting into the ocean is not exactly good news, Wahr says, according to his team's estimates, about 30 percent less ice is melting than previously thought. The team used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite, which was launched as a joint project between NASA and Germany in 2002. The GRACE satellite measures gravity, which is related to mass, in 20 distinct regions worldwide. Wahr says that gives the team more accurate estimates, because previous teams had to measure ice loss at "a few easily accessible glaciers" and then extrapolate it to the 200,000 glaciers worldwide.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/0...

But no, the IPCC ignores these papers and goes with the most alarmist prediction from 2006. But that’s okay. I hope they keep it up. It seems every time an alarmist makes an alarming claim, the opposite happens. If you are trying to sway public opinion, it might be better to state something like “we just don’t know for sure.”
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38998 Sep 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Mail, Brain_Dead? This is where you get your science?
They say almost a million square miles more which they can say because they rounded off 580,000 to "almost a million square miles".
Note that even they admit to 2012 being a record low.
And still, you do not get it, that ice extent is a different thing from ice mass, particularly in relation to the remaining "old ice", that which is thicker than one or two years will give you.
But we know, that for you, it's any port in a storm....
Where did you get the 580,000 number? According to NSIDC website the August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38999 Sep 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Climate scientists examining a dozen extreme weather events from 2012 found that manmade global warming likely contributed to at least half of them, including a record-breaking deadly heat wave in the U.S. The international report released on Thursday offers a demonstration of the new capabilities that scientists are developing in an emerging,complex area of climate science known as “extreme event attribution.”
On the whole, the scientists found that, as suspected, climate change has already increased the odds of and altered the characteristics of some extreme events around the planet, and that is expected to continue and grow worse. However, the report also illustrated the limitations of attribution studies.
The international report, which was jointly released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.K. Met Office, included 19 separate studies on 12 extreme events, ranging from the U.S. drought to flooding in New Zealand. The study results, some of which contradict one another, reflect the emerging nature of the science. Scientists employed multiple ways of analyzing a given event, with each approach leading researchers to make different conclusions.
Climate Central
They sound confused. They contradict each other and have different conclusions. What was the purpose of this? To show us how much they really don't know?
EXPERT

Cottonwood, CA

#39000 Sep 8, 2013
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-24151...
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39002 Sep 8, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
Not 'covered'. The 'sea ice areal extent' requires 15% ice coverage. In other words, the area can be larger or smaller by an amazing amount and still have the same ice cover.

The current state is that the ice has been 'scattered' more than usual so it occupies a larger areal extent. But even there, it is BELOW the 2000-2009 average.
EXPERT wrote:
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Oh, well. If the BBC reported it, it must be true. You couldn't get poorer 'sources' unless you resorted to the Daily Mail..
EXPERT wrote:
Oh. Good Grief..
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39004 Sep 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

Oh, well. If the BBC reported it, it must be true. You couldn't get poorer 'sources' unless you resorted to the Daily Mail..
<quoted text>
Oh. Good Grief..
The BBC reported it because NASA said it:

“Recent satellite data from the U.S. Space agency NASA indicate that sea ice in the Arctic and Greenland is melting at a faster rate than previously projected. VOA's Paul Sisco has the story. Climate scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, outside Washington, say the Arctic Ocean could be mostly ice free in late summer 2013.

‘The sea ice is decreasing faster than all the models predicted," says Jay Zwally, the ice satellite project scientist at NASA Goddard,‘We not only have the warming of the atmosphere, we have a warming of the ocean that is affecting this. It has been surprising to everybody, this decrease in [Arctic sea ice] area. This is a marked departure, and this is suggesting to us that maybe we are getting at this tipping point.’”

http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39005 Sep 9, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-24151...
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph

Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39006 Sep 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
No delusions in these articles. The articles are written in response to climate scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic in the summer of 2013. So instead we have a 60% increase in ice over the previous year. Of course this is news and should be reported. If it was a 60% decrease in ice, don’t you think that would be reported? A 60% increase or decrease over one year is big news. The climate scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic this summer seem to be ones who are delusional. Don’t you believe these scientists should be held accountable for their predictions? And of course we all know that the Arctic ice has decreased since 1979, but there are not any good records to compare what the ice extent was like before then. The melting of the Arctic does not prove that man is responsible for the recent trend, it just proves we have been warming, but not in any kind of alarming rate. None of the IPCC predictions of the major signs of AGW have materialized. Both poles are not melting and there is no equator hot spot that they say must happen that triggers a positive climate feedback and temperatures have reached a standstill for 15 years despite greater than expected CO2 levels.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#39007 Sep 9, 2013
This is the most ridiculous fallacy coming from US, by just saying about chemical weapons, by calling redline by predetermining to jumping to conclusion.

When Obama says if he won't act, that would lose credibility--maybe his credibility is to the rebels.

But the world does not allow US to strike Syria. So that has no credibility by just thinking that does not care what the world says TO STRIKE, as well as in UN MATTERS, like Bush.

US is the other party, by saying Syria used chemical weapons.
But Syria Assad says he has not used chemical weapons. But does the world have to act on this from what Obama says? US has chemical weapons too and there are over 40 countries also have.
It is up to the world if there is a court to look into it, that US is not policeman nor prosecutor, but the third party.
When the other party Syria says of not using chemical weapons, both US and the other party must be present, to show their case, and that is impossible as it will take a lot of time and procedure. ONE is too naive and unrealistic to be jumping to conclusion that the world will go by one side of what Obama and Kerry say that is their absolute proof and evidence, but that is not how it works. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to waste on time to go by looking into Syria again and again.
When the other party Syria proves it is not true and they Syrians have not done it, then US is in deep trouble by falsifying to commit atrocity.

But the world might have no time for this, simply that is the credibility to rule out of any strike by US---that Obama does not know even where and what the credibility IS ABOUT.

UN might have to rule out US saying, because the public business of credibility of what the world wants is not to strike Syria--ASSAD SAYS HE DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS--US EVEN SAYS HE IS LYING AS ALL OTHER SIDES SAY US LYING TOO--WHAT IS THE POINT BY MAKING THIS NUISANCE BY OBAMA?

The public business matter is in the UN as UN can reject and disapprove anything as not worthwhile.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39008 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No delusions in these articles. The articles are written in response to climate scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic in the summer of 2013.
Lie.

Scientist, not scientists.
So instead we have a 60% increase in ice over the previous year. Of course this is news and should be reported. If it was a 60% decrease in ice, don’t you think that would be reported? A 60% increase or decrease over one year is big news.
Lie. It was expected.
The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There's a principle in statistics known as "regression toward the mean," which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
The climate scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic this summer seem to be ones who are delusional. Don’t you believe these scientists should be held accountable for their predictions?
Same lie.

One scientist.
And of course we all know that the Arctic ice has decreased since 1979, but there are not any good records to compare what the ice extent was like before then.
Lie.

There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSumm...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kin...
The melting of the Arctic does not prove that man is responsible for the recent trend,
Lie.

The melting of the ice was predicted by AGW theory, and the observation of it happening is strong evidence in support of that theory.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ic...
...it just proves we have been warming, but not in any kind of alarming rate.
Lie.

A melt of Arctic sea ice unprecedented for thousands of years is alarming.
None of the IPCC predictions of the major signs of AGW have materialized.
Lie.

Arctic amplification (ie rapid warming of the Artic) was predicted by AGW theory.
Both poles are not melting
Lie.

Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/...
...and there is no equator hot spot that they say must happen
Lie.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
that triggers a positive climate feedback and temperatures have reached a standstill for 15 years despite greater than expected CO2 levels.
Lie.

Temperatures have risen in the last 15 years. The last decade was the hottest in the record.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Deniers are liars.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39009 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The BBC reported it because NASA said it:
The distortions of 'hearsay' and 'spin' are only slightly lower in newspapers compared to lobby groups. Sounds like they overblew an 'off the cuff remark'. It wasn't untrue. Just unlikely.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
“Recent satellite data from the U.S. Space agency NASA indicate that sea ice in the Arctic and Greenland is melting at a faster rate than previously projected. VOA's Paul Sisco has the story. Climate scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, outside Washington, say the Arctic Ocean could be mostly ice free in late summer 2013.
And your do not support your claim. You said that it stated that the arctic would be ice free in 2013. Perhaps you are having trouble with the difference between 'would' and 'could'? There are remedial English classes for adults, you know?
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
‘The sea ice is decreasing faster than all the models predicted," says Jay Zwally, the ice satellite project scientist at NASA Goddard,‘We not only have the warming of the atmosphere, we have a warming of the ocean that is affecting this. It has been surprising to everybody, this decrease in [Arctic sea ice] area. This is a marked departure, and this is suggesting to us that maybe we are getting at this tipping point.’”
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
Yes. The decadal average for each 10 years has been significantly lower each decade. Even the area this year (mostly due to low ice packing in the 'covered area' is well below the 2000-2009 average.

The volume is the key to this. Each winter can put up a LOT of thin first year ice. The minimum depends on how fast that melts (along with some of the multi-year ice from prior decades) and the way it 'packs'. You only need 15% of an area to be ice covered to be in the 'arctic sea ice area'. But the ice is thinner and thinner each year leading to more rapid collapse in general (not in EVERY year) as less heat is needed to melt it and the open water leads to faster breakup.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39010 Sep 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the 580,000 number? According to NSIDC website the August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I don't remember the site where I looked at figures. But if NSIDC says 919,000 miles, then that's what it is. After all, as you guys say, they are well-respected members of the Global Warming Conspiracy.

When and if I'm wrong, I acknowledge it.

Did you have anything to say about the rest of my post, as in, extent isn't nearly as important or indicative as mass?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39011 Sep 9, 2013
Blast from the past (2010):
Fair Game wrote:
As I've pointed out before, the line wiggles up and it wiggles down, but it wiggles down more than it wiggles up.
Convenient for deniers that the extent graph has wiggled up a bit in the last few years as they focus on AGW legislation in the US, but irrelevant in the long term.
Arctic summer sea ice will be gone in a decade or two: by that time the deniers will have wiggled off themselves- into the woodwork.
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/T1046AOH0...

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) 9 min flack 1,154,072
sex 28 min rahul 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 31 min Jacques Ottawa 181,813
amy 12-20 46 min Pippa 5
abby 12-20 1 hr Pippa 5
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr RACE 4,917
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Ralph 98,853
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 11:28 am PST

Bleacher Report11:28AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
Bleacher Report11:39 AM
Complete Week 16 Preview for Indianapolis
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:01 PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:26 AM
Report: Executives suggest Bears could have to attach a draft pick to move Cutler