Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L A Times has been falsely hyping in numerous recent articles that the year 2023/2024 December through February California rainy season outcome is “supercharged” and “wild” based upon use of climate alarmism hyperbole that conceals extensive NOAA climate science precipitation data that clearly proves California’s most recent rainy season is in fact completely normal based on detailed and readily available NOAA rainfall records going back to year 1895. 

These recent Times rainfall climate alarmist hyperbole articles are shown below and found here, here, here and here.

These L A Times articles provide absolutely no presentation of readily available, detailed, and extensive NOAA climate science precipitation data that addresses measured rainfall levels for the state of California, all 58 California County regions and numerous California City regions over the period from 1895 through February 2024. 

This NOAA measured rainfall data concealed by the L A Times provides a clear climate science measured data record that establishes that the states rainy season between December 2023 through February 2024 is completely normal (unlike the climate alarmist hyperbole reflected in the Times recent articles noted above) based on comparisons to prior historical rainfall records for the state, the states 58 counties and numerous state cities including both Los Angeles and San Diego.          

Shown below are NOAA precipitation records for the state of California for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 rainfall is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period as documented by NOAA’s more than century long California rainfall measurement database.

The most recent state rainfall period in California for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 14.38 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,458 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent 3-month period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.

The highest ever recorded California rainfall over the period between December and February was 23.26 inches from December 1968 through February 1969 which is 162% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.

Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the County of Los Angeles for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.

The most recent state rainfall period for the County of Los Angeles for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 15.12 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,491 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent 3-month period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.

The highest ever recorded Los Angeles County rainfall over the period between December and February was 27.43 inches from December 1992 through February 1993 which is 181% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.

Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the County of San Diego for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.

The most recent state rainfall period for the County of San Diego for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 9.39 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,426 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.

The highest ever recorded San Diego County rainfall over the period between December and February was 21.91 inches from December 1992 through February 1993 which is 2.3 times greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.

Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the County of Ventura for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1895 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.

The most recent state rainfall period for the County of Ventura for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 21.80 inches of rainfall which is only the 1,504 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 1,548 measured 3-month periods between 1895 and 2024.

The highest ever recorded Ventura County rainfall over the period between December and February was 34.18 inches from December 1997 through February 1998 which is 157% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.

In fact, the NOAA rainfall data for all 58 Counties for California establishes that these counties experienced rainfall levels in the period between December 2023 and February 2024 that were far below prior NOAA measured highest rainfall values for this 3-month period that occurred between 1895 and 2024. 

Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the City of Los Angeles for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1944 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.

The most recent state rainfall period for the City of Los Angeles for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 15.55 inches of rainfall which is only the 940 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 953 measured 3-month periods between 1944 and 2024.

The highest ever recorded City of Los Angeles rainfall over the period between December and February was 21.44 inches from December 1997 through February 1998 which is 138% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.

Shown below are the NOAA precipitation records for the City of San Diego for the rainfall period inclusive of December through February for the years 1939 through February 2024 which show the most recent December 2023 through February 2024 is unremarkable and well below prior year rainfall records experienced during this 3 month period.

The most recent state rainfall period for the City of San Diego for the months from December 2023 through February 2024 totals 9.03 inches of rainfall which is only the 976 highest experienced rainfall during this most recent period out of the highest 1014 measured 3-month periods between 1939 and 2024.

The highest ever recorded City of San Diego rainfall over the period between December and February was 16.37 inches from December 1992 through February 1993 which is 181% greater than occurred between December 2023 and February 2024.

The L A Times seems completely incapable of evaluating NOAA climate science data driven analysis concerning climate outcomes as demonstrated by the recent articles noted above which grossly misrepresent the outcomes of the 2023/2024 rainfall season in California, which based on detailed NOAA measured rainfall data, is a completely normal rainfall season and clearly not a “supercharged” and “wild” rainy season as falsely hyped by the climate alarmist propaganda presented in the L A Times recent articles. 

The Times substitutes climate alarmism hyperbole dealing with peripheral topics concerning the rainy season outcome while never actually addressing NOAA’s extensive and highly detailed rainfall data outcomes that clearly establish the normal rainfall levels occurring in California this rainy season.

The Times claims of “supercharged” and “wild” rainfall between December 2023 through February 2024 in California are pathetic and a clear demonstration of the climate science incompetence represented by climate alarmist and climate alarmism propaganda.

Finding Martin Durkin’s film on YouTube was more trying than it ought to have been (see my comment here and Jaime’s reply). Once I had found it, how did I find it?

Well, it has strong points, and weak points. Sadly, although the strong points greatly outnumbered the weak points, the weak points rendered the whole thing a missed opportunity. When metal fatigue caused explosive decompression on the old Comet 1, it was easy to overlook how well made the rest of the plane was. It only takes one serious flaw to crash a plane, or a movie, no matter how well the rest of it is put together.

(ASTERISK: The Comet 1 failures in 1954 (jet airliners! 70 years ago!) were not caused by the square windows. This is probably an idea that is impossible to kill. It certainly makes for a more memorable tale than describing the real place on the fuselage that the cracks propagated from. Subsequent marks did not have square windows, making this an obvious point of difference.)

The problem is quite simply that the film decides, not merely to prove that climate change is not an existential threat, but to show that CO₂ has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature changes at all. This occurs in a substantial block of the film from about 22 to 32 minutes in. And while the eminent talking heads in that portion make entirely cogent points, the narrative stitching those soundbites together would leave the uninformed viewer with the impression that CO₂ is not the driver of any of the recent temperature rise.

This is not true, and I don’t believe that the assorted professors believe it to be true. They may think that CO₂ has produced half of the recent warming, or below half. But not none of it, as the film would have us believe.

As I am fond of saying, if you debunk, you had better be damn sure of your ground. It’s a version of “When you strike at a king, you must kill him,” which is a lesson that Yevgeny Prigozhin did not live very long to ponder. But what it means in this sense is that your criticism of an untrue theory must itself not contain any obvious flaws.

It is also a natural quality of an authoritative film that it must present the opposition case with the diligence that the opposition themselves would present it. In terms of Teh Climate Crisis, this means the effect of CO₂ on the atmosphere and feedbacks. Nowhere is this mentioned in Climate : The Movie, let alone debunked. The well-known emission spectrum of Earth should have been presented, with an explanation of increasing CO₂ concentrations causing greater absorption on the flanks of its key frequency bands. In other words: it’s not nothing, but it’s not catastrophe. This is a position that is well supported by the data. “It’s nothing” – as presented or implied here – is a fatal flaw.

What about the good bits? Well, we had great punches thrown by a range of talking heads who will be familiar to climate sceptics, as will their observations. The vast quantity of funding for climate science (a problem for the search for truth that I term “searching in the wrong woods”), the personal jeopardy of anyone who takes a sceptical position, the censorship, the bandwagon and the forced consensus are all telling points. Less well fleshed out are the sections at the end where the problems of climate policy for personal freedom, wealth and third-world development are mentioned. Perhaps, to do justice to the whole field, a series of short films, each on a different subtopic, would have been better. I am asking for too much, I know.

The film ends with a problem we are all familiar with: China and coal use, and the fact that (I paraphrase) only the guilt-wracked Western nations are on board with the self-destructive Net Zero policies. The implication is that our wealth has peaked, and we are set for decades of decline, or rather our descendants are, for many sceptics – as exemplified by the talking heads in Climate : The Movie – are of an age that they will avoid the worst of the outcomes. And yes, climate policy will cause more problems than climate change.

The central flaw in the film means that I would not recommend it to non-climate obsessives, despite all its good points. I could not, in good conscience, leave them with the idea that a key argument of sceptics is to deny the greenhouse effect altogether. I don’t. And I promise there will not be a climate catastrophe, despite CO₂ interacting with infrared photons in the atmosphere.

This is the version of the film I watched. The description says it has an updated figure.