As I suggested in post 56 above, the chances of an event like that in 1862 are exceedingly UNlikely. "Rains like this at this time of the year are far less of a threat because the snowpack has not yet accumulated."
Here is another example from before the storm where I indicated that it was unlikely to be the cause of a flood: "We're supposedly due for about six inches of rain between midnight and noon, which would be hardly unusual."Clearly, I did not think or say that the sky is falling, quite the contrary.
Yet since you quite clearly cannot read, you persist in this stupidity.
Oh, that’s right, you’re too busy reading to see that the sky isn’t falling.
Contrary to your assertion, in post 64 I CASTIGATED the source article from The Scientific American: "Which renders the article another error-riddled piece of grant-mongering screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE" on the heels of Sandy. IOW the content is more appropriate for a carnival barker than the "Scientific" American."
Which renders your post completely false. Had you read the thread, you would know that.
So, no, I didn't believe the magazine. I never said there was an imminent deluge; I merely proved to you that a serious flood in Northern California is POSSIBLE. Yes, you quite clearly do not R-E-A-D and yes, you are an idiot.
GG, this is an example of why I'm tired of FR. Twelve years, and it just keeps getting worse.
You cited some thing from a hundred and fifty years ago that you thought was relevant to the (then) upcoming No Cal storm. But you didn’t think that it was possible? WTF? After twelve years, maybe its time you did take a break — but at a minimum, tone down the condescending attitude and knock off calling other Freepers names just because you disagree with them. Have a good one.