Even without figuring in climate change, the California pattern tends to be a few very wet years followed by several very dry years, with only very occasional “average” years. It’s certainly been that way in my six+ decades, and if you look at the historical rainfall graphs for Los Angeles it’s pretty similar since at least 1887.
https://www.laalmanac.com/images4/chart-rainfall-LA-1887-2022.jpg
It’s always been that way. Even month to month, we’ve had very dry spells in wet years. And in the 87-92 drought there was a “Miracle March” in 1991. The histogram of rainfall has two humps: dry, or wet. The average precipitation is quite unlikely. This year is the closest to average we’ve had in a long time. The worst is they often use the word “normal” instead of average, but there’s nothing normal about the average.
Even without figuring in climate change, the California pattern tends to be a few very wet years followed by several very dry years, with only very occasional “average” years. It’s certainly been that way in my six+ decades, and if you look at the historical rainfall graphs for Los Angeles it’s pretty similar since at least 1887. https://www.laalmanac.com/images4/chart-rainfall-LA-1887-2022.jpg
(Note: 1883 was the year Krakatoa erupted.)
It’s always been that way. Even month to month, we’ve had very dry spells in wet years. And in the 87-92 drought there was a “Miracle March” in 1991. The histogram of rainfall has two humps: dry, or wet. The average precipitation is quite unlikely. This year is the closest to average we’ve had in a long time. The worst is they often use the word “normal” instead of average, but there’s nothing normal about the average.