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
36,661 - 36,680 of 45,779 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39008
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39009
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

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

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39010
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39011
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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...
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39012
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I guess it was to show you and others here that the science is NOT settled in certain areas; that rather than a monolithic conspiracy to "raise your taxes", the reality is that there are differences of opinion and differences in results across all of the research community.

To use a simile oft applied to Congress, it like seeing how sausages are made.

The science of global warming itself, the big picture, is settled. The mechanism, the chemistry, and the physics are basic and undeniable.

The Earth is warming.

We are causing it.

There are things we can do about it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39013
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Blast from the past (2009):
Fair Game wrote:
Really! I've been surprised at how many people just don't get the simplest of scientific ideas: that a wiggly line may wiggle up and down, but wiggle up more than it wiggles down.(A long term trend may be visible in noisy data.)
http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39014
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
Lie.
Same lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
liars.
You waste so much bandwidth. How do you live with yourself knowing your increasing CO2?

LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39015
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess it was to show you and others here that the science is NOT settled in certain areas; that rather than a monolithic conspiracy to "raise your taxes", the reality is that there are differences of opinion and differences in results across all of the research community.
To use a simile oft applied to Congress, it like seeing how sausages are made.
The science of global warming itself, the big picture, is settled. The mechanism, the chemistry, and the physics are basic and undeniable.
The Earth is warming.
We are causing it.
There are things we can do about it.
"There are things we can do about it."

Unless, of course, you're a leader of the movement, or a climate scientist.

Then you get a free pass for all your carbon usage.

Mottoes for the warmists:

Relative ethics are absolute.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39016
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
Scientist, not scientists.
<quoted text>
Lie. It was expected.
<quoted text>
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
<quoted text>
Same lie.
One scientist.
<quoted text>
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...
<quoted text>
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...
<quoted text>
Lie.
A melt of Arctic sea ice unprecedented for thousands of years is alarming.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Arctic amplification (ie rapid warming of the Artic) was predicted by AGW theory.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/...
<quoted text>
Lie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
<quoted text>
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.
You wrote: Lie. Scientist, not scientists.

No, there were scientists:

Maslowski, Professor Peter Wadhams, Warwich Vincent James Hansen personally and NASA.…In fact Wadhams stated this: The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.

You wrote: Lie. The increase was expected.

Really? A 60% increase was expected? Can I ask you a question? How come the skeptics are getting a lecture from Skeptical Science now? Where was the lecture to all the alarmists telling everyone that we would have an ice-free Arctic by 2013? Where was Skeptical Science when ice experts were telling us that a loss the year before will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse? How come Skeptical Science didn’t lecture them with their “regression toward the mean” theory? No one at the time was trying to downplay the news of an ice-free Arctic by 2013. In fact Joe Romm was taking on extra bets at the time and he was calling Maslowski a top ice expert and a non-alarmist.

From Think Progress:

Maybe Climate Progress isn’t alarmist after all. Maybe this future is nearer than everyone thinks: I was called “over-alarmist” by one of the people who took my bet that the Arctic would be ice free by 2020. But one of the country’s top ice experts, non-alarmist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School, told an American Geophysical Union audience this week: My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice…. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007. So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.
No, I haven’t spent the $1000 yet, but I might take some more bets…

So it is a little hypocritical to come out and attack the messengers for something you all predicted and never downplayed at the time.

Continued next post.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39017
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
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...
<quoted text>
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...
<quoted text>
Lie.
A melt of Arctic sea ice unprecedented for thousands of years is alarming.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Arctic amplification (ie rapid warming of the Artic) was predicted by AGW theory.
<quoted text>
Lie.
Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/...
<quoted text>
Lie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...
<quoted text>
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.
Continued post:

You wrote about Artic ice: Lie. There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.

You can’t compare satellite records to incomplete records from the past, especially since so many records were lost during WWII.
Here is an interesting history on the Arctic during that timeframe:

“The warming of the arctic seas has caused a diminishing of the arctic drift ice, which again has improved shipping conditions. In the 1907-1917 period Norwegian coal mines in Spitsbergen were able to load and export coal an average of 94 days each season, while 20 years later this period has been extended to 192 days. In 1878-80 Nordenskjold in the Vega was the first to navigate the North East Passage, but to do this he had to winter twice. In 1936 a convoy of fourteen Russian ships mode the trip in one season without encountering serious ice difficulties and during the last war this northern Sea route was used extensively by Soviet shipping. During 1942-45 even war ships, which are especially vulnerable to ice, were able to reach Thule without difficulty.
The seas around Greenland have also been remarkably open in later years. The east coast, which frequently remained completely blocked by pack-ice, in 1931-33 was almost free from ice.”“In 1941-42 the low-powered, 80 ton R.C.M.P. schooner St. Roch made the North West Passage for the first time from the Pacific to the Atlantic and again in 1944 in the opposite direction in only 87 days.”

http://www.thearcticcircle.ca/pdf/Arctic%20Ci...

You said: Lie. Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.

Wrong:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.n...

You said I lied about the equator hot spot.

Wrong.

From your article: The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming.

From the IPCC AR4: Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c). The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch et al., 1997).

There has been no hot spot as described by the IPCC.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39018
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote: Lie. Scientist, not scientists.
No, there were scientists:
Maslowski, Professor Peter Wadhams, Warwich Vincent James Hansen personally and NASA.…In fact Wadhams stated this: The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.
Lie.

The 2013 prediction was not made by these scientists.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39019
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

kristy wrote:
You wrote: Lie. The increase was expected.
Really? A 60% increase was expected?
Yes- it's perfectly consistent with the downward trend.

Take a lesson from 2008.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39020
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Continued post:
You wrote about Artic ice: Lie. There are shipping records going back more than a hundred years and proxy records going back thousands.
You can’t compare satellite records to incomplete records from the past, especially since so many records were lost during WWII.
Here is an interesting history on the Arctic during that timeframe:
“The warming of the arctic seas has caused a diminishing of the arctic drift ice, which again has improved shipping conditions. In the 1907-1917 period Norwegian coal mines in Spitsbergen were able to load and export coal an average of 94 days each season, while 20 years later this period has been extended to 192 days. In 1878-80 Nordenskjold in the Vega was the first to navigate the North East Passage, but to do this he had to winter twice. In 1936 a convoy of fourteen Russian ships mode the trip in one season without encountering serious ice difficulties and during the last war this northern Sea route was used extensively by Soviet shipping. During 1942-45 even war ships, which are especially vulnerable to ice, were able to reach Thule without difficulty.
The seas around Greenland have also been remarkably open in later years. The east coast, which frequently remained completely blocked by pack-ice, in 1931-33 was almost free from ice.”“In 1941-42 the low-powered, 80 ton R.C.M.P. schooner St. Roch made the North West Passage for the first time from the Pacific to the Atlantic and again in 1944 in the opposite direction in only 87 days.”
http://www.thearcticcircle.ca/pdf/Arctic%20Ci...
Lie.

We have shipping maps from those period.

They show that the ice melt then was no comparable to the present.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39021
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
You said: Lie. Both polar ice caps are losing mass, ie melting.
Wrong:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.n...
Right, idiot.

My link is based on data up to 2011- yours only up to 2008.

Science moves on, denial doesn't.

You just copied and pasted from a denier blog as usual without thinking.

And did you actually read your link?

It says the Antarctic is losing mass due to *warming* but this has been counterbalanced by extra snow fall due to *warming*.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39022
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
You said I lied about the equator hot spot.
Wrong.
From your article: The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming.
From the IPCC AR4: Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c). The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch et al., 1997).
There has been no hot spot as described by the IPCC.
The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-...

When even a sceptic like Christy says there's nothing here to see, maybe you should take notice?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39023
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
We have shipping maps from those period.
They show that the ice melt then was no comparable to the present.
And cut'n paste denier spam too.

Krusty as usual runs to the denier blogs for a response.
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39024
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

3

krust wrote:
So instead we have a 60% increase in ice over the previous year......
.......as I said near the end of 2012, might occur in 2013..... altho I didn't state 60%, as you say & lie.

As usual, toxic topix AGW deniers take the extraordinary 2012 collapse of sea ice (as they did in 2007) & make it THEIR standard bearer. Of course, toxic topix AGW deniers denied to the end, the collapse of 2007 & 2012, by NOT saying anything.

Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1.

The cackling of 'krusty' is actually a coughing spell of toxic topix AGW denial.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39025
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
It did not happen. We made it. Glad it is finally over. That was scary.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39026
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
.......as I said near the end of 2012, might occur in 2013..... altho I didn't state 60%, as you say & lie.
As usual, toxic topix AGW deniers take the extraordinary 2012 collapse of sea ice (as they did in 2007) & make it THEIR standard bearer. Of course, toxic topix AGW deniers denied to the end, the collapse of 2007 & 2012, by NOT saying anything.
Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1.
The cackling of 'krusty' is actually a coughing spell of toxic topix AGW denial.
Hey, gourd head!!! when will warming ever be deemed as temporary in your world???

LOL

btw....what is 'altho'??? We all know what a stickler you are for spelling! Did you finish middle school, mullet???

take a bath you 'steenking foul reprobate". you smell of used bytch.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39027
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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. 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.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...

This graph is interactive and will allow you to compare any two years.

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.

29 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 14 min voice of peace 67,927
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr truth 48,894
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr John Galt 1,079,665
Presidential library planned for Chicago Chicag... 1 hr joey 3
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Milsack 174,600
One kilometre high and counting (Jul '07) 3 hr TW_sugar_daddio 10
Amy 7-24 4 hr loose cannon 19
Abby 7-24 5 hr Pippa 42
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr Mister Tonka 97,524
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••