Narrative interrupted

LA Times: Never mind, those big California rainstorms weren’t caused by climate change after all

The Los Angeles Times surprisingly, admits this in Thursday’s edition:

Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California’s historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses.

They were singing a different tune on January 11:

But climate change is still the culprit, right? It must be; that’s what the New York Times told me. Actually, no, according to researchers:

Although the media and some officials were quick to link a series of powerful storms to climate change, researchers interviewed by The [Los Angeles] Times said they had yet to see evidence of that connection. Instead, the unexpected onslaught of rain and snow after three years of punishing drought appears akin to other major storms that have struck California every decade or more since experts began keeping records in the 1800s.

How does it compare to past storms? Turns out 1956 was much worse:

Indeed, this mid-winter’s precipitation was far behind the 1956 season, when California had received a whopping 85.3% of its average annual precipitation by Jan. 17, according to the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes. As of Wednesday, California had accumulated about 70% of its average annual total, the center said.

Within the last century, Southern California experienced the “Great flood of 1938,” which killed more than 100 people; left thousands homeless and prompted officials to line the Los Angeles River with concrete as a means of flood control. Other intense storms have occurred in 1964, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1995, and 2005, when a school camp perched 3,600 feet above Pasadena in the Angeles National Forest recorded 107 inches of rain in one week.