# California not suffering, drought?



## elektra (Sep 3, 2014)

How is it so, that during what we are told, is, "the worst drought in history", that California produces a record harvest of Grapes.

Seems awful short sighted, even mean, that California's Liberal/Democrats are more concerned with their "upper class wine", than saving water.

Water spilled for Wine, Water spilled for Solar Power. Yet the people are made to suffer with no water.

Liberal/Democrats, I guess this is what Obama talks about at all those Beverly Hills fund raisers.

Calif. wine-grape growers celebrate record harvest Fox News



> *Calif. wine-grape growers celebrate record harvest*
> Published February 15, 2014
> Associated Press
> Facebook64 Twitter150
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 3, 2014)

No worry, we lost all our wine in the recent Earthquake.

Now we have nothing left in the Peoples Republic.

I understand Commissar Brown has ordered oily vodka, but none has shown up yet....


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 3, 2014)

Elektra, you are about the stupidest liar on this board. 

http://cdrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/drought-monitor-map.jpg

7 Powerful Photos Before And After The California Drought

14 Facts Everyone Should Know About The California Drought


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

From the story about the grape harvest:

Growers in the nation's premier wine region brought in a bumper crop *last* year, thanks to expanded acreage and overall favorable weather.


----------



## alanbmx123 (Sep 3, 2014)

I can't water my lawn but the city of San Diego waters the weeds on the side of the freeway in the hottest part of the day. But the weather is fantastic 80% of the year 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 3, 2014)

They're building a $1.5 billion desalination plant in CA. The nation's largest. There's one other desal plant in CA and one in FL.


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

alanbmx123 said:


> I can't water my lawn but the city of San Diego waters the weeds on the side of the freeway in the hottest part of the day. But the weather is fantastic 80% of the year



Your lawn is not preventing mudslides and erosion onto major highways (when the rain returns).


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> They're building a $1.5 billion desalination plant in CA. The nation's largest. There's one other desal plant in CA and one in FL.



That is a good thing, but it is still far to expensive for agriculture.


----------



## elektra (Sep 4, 2014)

Still, the State of California is screaming drought, the price of food we are told is rising because they just do not have the water, yet at the same time they have enough water to make a record amount of expensive wine, I guess to drink while they snub their noses at the peasants who believe the, "news". 

I find it very ironic, even while its raining we are told its a drought, record grape crops, and its reported as a drought.

The worst drought on record and we have enough water to make expensive wine, how is that? Yea, they expanded the acreage, which takes more water, but we do not have water?

It is all politics, money, and power. 

Chinatown


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

Grapes are a food crop.  Wine is a staple.  Quit yer bitchin'.

As the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers upscale cousin Leopold once said "Wine will get you through times of no water better than water will get you through times of no wine".


----------



## elektra (Sep 5, 2014)

Grapes are food?

I guess compression is lacking, crick. 

Grapes for wine, not a food staple, like wheat or beef.

Wine is a food staple for the liberal democrat slobs that dictate.


----------



## elektra (Sep 5, 2014)

Everything is fine, as long as you are a rich wine producer, plenty of water to expand profits while at the same time the people are told we ain't got the water to flush the toilet or take a hot bath.

Irony?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2014)

Looks like Elektra likes a lot of whine with his wine


----------



## elektra (Sep 7, 2014)

Looks like old crock is an old crock.

The liberal sky is falling agw jerks can have their cake and eat it too.

There is no water in california,  worst drought ever, but water intensive crops like grapes for wine are doing better than fine, the are setting records, more grapes than ever before.

When one points out the contradiction there is silence from some and downright angry, shut the f#!k up comments from others.

Global warming green energy advocates are the new nazis, the new bigots.

It's kind of crazy to see that prehistoric behavior in the 21st century.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 7, 2014)

elektra said:


> There is no water in california,  worst drought ever, but water intensive crops like grapes for wine are doing better than fine, the are setting records, more grapes than ever before.



Do you take 'stupid pills' or use meth? Or were you born this stupid?

*California Viticulture Hit Hard by Drought*
Liberty Voice
May 15, 2014
(excerpts)
*California is a major contributor within the global viticulture community. The entire state is facing a severe drought which is drastically affecting the people, wildlife and agriculture of the land mass. Because wine production and exportation is majorly important for the economy of the state, wine producers and enthusiasts are very worried about the final outcome of the drought and how hard it will have hit California’s lucrative viticulture. The production of wine is under scrutiny by residents of the state. The amount of water necessary to keep California’s wine production stable is astronomical. With 100 percent of the state’s residents now having to watch their personal water intake, many are looking to ensure that the wineries are also under the same rules. Many wineries have been looking for new underground wells to tap in order to sustain their crops, while others are abandoning their vines altogether.

Wine growing regions of California are normally very prosperous- one region within the state was awarded the Wine Region of the Year in 2013 by Wine Enthusiast magazine. California provides well over three-fourths of the nation’s wine. Earlier this year wine production was expected to crawl, with a 25 percent decrease in production across the board. With the entire state now under the most severe drought it has seen in 100 years, wine production and viticulture as a whole will likely slow even more in the coming months, with this hit of hardship possibly lasting for years. Some regions, particularly the Napa Valley, were expecting the worst earlier this year in terms of drought and were confident that crops could withstand the lack of water. However, other areas only had one month of water earlier this year, so it is very likely that their current situation is dire. On average, a grapevine being grown without water restrictions requires about six gallons of water per week. Needless to say, the grapevines of California are not receiving this necessary amount of water. Some growers are preparing for zero production for the remainder of the year as they watch their vines succumb to terrible drought conditions, one by one.
*








elektra said:


> Global warming green energy advocates are the new *nazis*, the new bigots.



In reality, anthropogenic global warming deniers are the new *'Flat Earthers'*, the new *'Know-Nothing Party'*, and the tragic victims of the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.

Oh, and then there is this....

*Godwin’s Law (earlier referred to as reductio ad Hitlerum [1]) was formulated by the attorney Mike Godwin (former general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation) in the 1990s and states:*
*“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”*​*Traditionally in many Internet discussion forums, it is the rule that once such a comparison is made, the discussion is effectively finished and whoever mentioned Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate.*


----------



## elektra (Sep 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > There is no water in california,  worst drought ever, but water intensive crops like grapes for wine are doing better than fine, the are setting records, more grapes than ever before.
> ...


It is raining right now, torrential downpour and Rolling Blunder looks at a Google paid search result for the truth.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 8, 2014)

(1) The record crop growth was _last _year, which is 2013. In other words...before the drought. So the OP article is irrelevant to what this year's crop yield will be, which is not yet known because the year is not over, and which will most definitely be less than 2013.

(2) CA is most definitely in a drought. I live here, and I see it with my own eyes every day. The drought is very real and very serious, regardless of the validity of global warming.

(3) The above two points are all that needs to be said in this thread.


----------



## elektra (Sep 9, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> (1) The record crop growth was _last _year, which is 2013. In other words...before the drought. So the OP article is irrelevant to what this year's crop yield will be, which is not yet known because the year is not over, and which will most definitely be less than 2013.
> 
> (2) CA is most definitely in a drought. I live here, and I see it with my own eyes every day. The drought is very real and very serious, regardless of the validity of global warming.
> 
> (3) The above two points are all that needs to be said in this thread.



Last year, 2013, is before the drought that has been going on since the end 2011?

My OP specifically states we are not suffering, we are setting records in agriculture as well as water preservation. We celebrated a record grape harvest during the current drought, hardly suffering.

You live here, big deal, I live here as well and see it with my own eyes, the shutting down of two nuclear power plants, less energy means less energy to pump water. 

How naive you are to believe that the media and the government actually tell the complete truth. 

Is there one story, is there one news report, are there any politicians discussing the impact of trying to pump water after shutting down two nuclear reactors?

What about the impact of pumping water with Green Energy? Is it even possible?

I do not trust the government nor the media.

Try reading Cadillac desert and watching Chinatown, then take a look at your drought stricken state.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 9, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > (1) The record crop growth was _last _year, which is 2013. In other words...before the drought. So the OP article is irrelevant to what this year's crop yield will be, which is not yet known because the year is not over, and which will most definitely be less than 2013.
> ...


The drought did not begin state-wide at the end of 2011, nor were there serious drought conditions in the region that grows grapes. As to the article I am responding to, the wine region in reference was not in drought at all in the first half of 2013, but in fact was _even wetter _than the prior year (hence the higher crop yields). Only at the end of 2013 did it even begin to experience any significant levels of drought, and by that time the grapes had already been harvested (harvesting season for grapes is around August).
192 drought maps reveal just how thirsty California has become - LA Times

Conditions began to worsen across the state towards the end of 2013, and the state of emergency was declared January of this year. Sorry, but your grape example doesn't discount anything. It only shows you are misinformed.



> My OP specifically states we are not suffering, we are setting records in agriculture as well as water preservation. We celebrated a record grape harvest during the current drought, hardly suffering.


We did not suffer record grape harvest during the current drought, as proven above. Water preservation is in response to the drought, and it is completely bizarre that the fact people are using less water is somehow evidence in your mind that the drought is having no effect--that is _exactly _the effect you would expect a drought to have.



> You live here, big deal, I live here as well and see it with my own eyes, the shutting down of two nuclear power plants, less energy means less energy to pump water.
> 
> How naive you are to believe that the media and the government actually tell the complete truth.
> 
> ...


I don't trust the government or the media either. But that doesn't mean everything they say is automatically false. The reality is that CA is suffering a very serious drought, and that drought is having an impact on agriculture and regions used to higher levels of water across the statement. Even up in the mountains snow levels were so low that many ski resorts lost big money.

But feel free to keep your head in the sand and pretend like the drought doesn't matter--just be careful. When the rains do come again, the soil will be more prone to flooding, and you might get washed away.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


Keep my head in the sand, better to keep my head in the sand, versus being like you with your head up your ass!

Try some reading comprehension to start, my title states, "California not suffering," that is with a comma, we are not suffering. Not unless like I point out, that I can not flush my toilet nor take a bath.

So you failed to realize that I am making a point, that some are suffering while people like you drink their wine and look down upon us who suffer your policies.

I realize that this may not be your position but this is the point I fighting, which you have taken upon yourself to argue.

How about that title, "drought?", with a question mark, get your head out of your ass and think about what that means as well.

And how about all the other threads here, do you think maybe this thread is a response or a counter to the information being posted.

If ShakledNation has his way, we are to ignore record grape harvests while being told we are in a drought over 30 months old, as posted in this thread and this link;

California suffering through SEVERE climate change US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

California Facing Worst Drought on Record NOAA Climate.gov



> In the 30 months preceding December 2013, the state has received closer to 33 inches, just a bit less than the previous record low for a similar period, from July 1975-December 1977.



ShakledNation now wants to change the drought time period, ShakledNation has a clever google cut/paste to explain away contradictions.

Get your head out of the sand, ShakledNation and try and keep up.

That region was, "even wetter", than the prior year. As stated by ShakledNation. That region is where Southern California gets it water, we pump it from there. 

We pump water from at least three sources, the first Water Project as started by Mullholland was the Owens Valley. Second was the Colorado, Third the Central Valley Project.

Three sources for Southern California water because Southern California is always in a drought, but thanks for pointing out that it was wetter than average from our largest source of water, up north.

ShakledNation, more like ShakledBrain


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

> But feel free to keep your head in the sand and pretend like the drought doesn't matter--just be careful. When the rains do come again, the soil will be more prone to flooding, and you might get washed away.





ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Another thought, about you projecting, a little proof that ShackledNation(brain) has his head in the sand. Just for the fun of it.

When the, "rains do come"? "flooding"?, "you may get washed away"? The rains did come, someone did get washed away and died, so how can you make the statement, "when the rains do come again". After all, ShakledNation(brain) lives here. It is raining, literally just finished as ShakledNation made this statement. Living here ShakledNation has to know it just rained, at that hard enough to flood and kill a person.

Southern California Flooding Mudslides Flash Flooding California Damage Homes Leave At Least 1 Dead - weather.com



> At least one person was killed and thousands were stranded as unusually rich monsoon moisture fueled powerful thunderstorms that slammed the Southwest with torrential rainfall Sunday, leading to flash flooding in several California and Arizona counties. The storms also brought damaging winds in the Phoenix area.
> 
> A body was found Sunday in a car that was swept into the rain-swollen water course in Mount Baldy and overturned, San Bernardino County Fire spokesman Chris Prater said. Authorities were working to remove the body from the car Sunday night, which was swept away from an area near Mt. Baldy Road and Bear Canyon Drive, NBC Los Angeles reported.
> 
> In California, More than 30 homes were damaged - with at least a dozen of them so severely damaged that they're uninhabitable, authorities said Monday.



ShakledNation, how low will you go, obviously you are intelligent, you live here, you see things with your own eyes every day. Is ShakledNation's Political Ideology so important that ShakledNation hopes we do not point out what ShakledNation ignores.



> (2) CA is most definitely in a drought. I live here, and I see it with my own eyes every day



ShakledNation sees the drought every day, just not the flooding, the death, the rain, all those clouds.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 10, 2014)

So.....it seems that ol' 'eekthetroll' is simply full-on crazy and completely around the bend.....



elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



LOL. You're so funny. I'm glad it's raining wherever you are 'cause I'm sure your area needs it, but most (or almost all) of the state hasn't had any rain in quite a while. Reservoirs are drying up and the water-table is sinking to greater and greater depths. Like a lot of rightwingnut retards, you can't seem to comprehend the difference between the weather in your backyard and the larger picture of the whole state, country or world.

BTW, I may use Google to find articles about the drought to cite on here to demonstrate what an idiot you are and how stupidly fraudulent your moronic OP was, but I can *see for myself* the almost depleted reservoirs here in the Bay Area and how extremely low Shasta Lake was in northern California. I live in a grape growing region and I know the growers are getting hit with water restrictions and are having to cut back on the acreage they can keep in cultivation until the drought (hopefully) eases up and we get some decent rains again.

I'm afraid that, if you imagine that California isn't in a drought, or that anthropogenic global warming isn't quite real and very dangerous, it is *your* head that is firmly jammed up your ass.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> So.....it seems that ol' 'eekthetroll' is simply full-on crazy and completely around the bend.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another RollingBlunder

You see? Then take pics and post them, I got some reservoir pics, and they are full. Hell I already posted some in other threads, time for them again. Just took a pic of two reservoirs a week ago, but that is another thread, this is about record grape harvests.

My article trumps yours, from the "Liberty Voice". Is that like CNN, FOX, or USA Today? At least you did not play your deck of google cards to draw from wikipedia again, that was dumb and I see you did not do that again. You learn, but not to fast.

Early 2014 Grape Harvest Begins - Wines Vines - Wine Industry News Headlines



> Early 2014 Grape Harvest Begins California vintners optimistic about early vintage with continued high quality by Andrew Adams “california Steve Matthiasson picked these clusters of Syrah from the Dunnigan Hills AVA on July 28. Several North Coast winemakers plan to start harvesting grapes for sparkling wine Wednesday. San Rafael, Calif.—An early vintage is getting started in the North Coast, where a few vintners are picking grapes this week for their sparkling and rosé wine programs. While the 2013 vintage arrived earlier than normal, some growers see signs that 2014 will be even earlier. They’re happy to report though that grape quality is comparable to 2012 and 2013, and yields are expected to be slightly above average if not as big as in 2013
> 
> Read more at: Early 2014 Grape Harvest Begins - Wines Vines - Wine Industry News Headlines
> Copyright © Wines & Vines



Wow, how about that, 2014 yields are expected to be above average, during the worst drought in our history.

Again, Drought?

Enjoy the Wine, record yields during a drought is reason to celebrate.

What suffering?

Post some suffering, that is the OP and if you disagree, post the suffering.






NO RAIN? We have floods, all of Southern California got hammered.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

Everywhere there are articles of record grape harvests despite government imposed water limits, not drought imposed water limits.

These articles are everywhere, except where liberal/democrats search. How is that.

California growers expect large crop of quality grapes despite challenges - The Produce News - Covering fresh produce around the globe since 1897.



> * California growers expect large crop of quality grapes, despite challenges *
> by Rand Green | July 25, 2014
> It is not easy being a farmer anywhere, and it has certainly not been easy in recent years to be a grape grower in California in the face of a plethora of challenges, ranging from drought exacerbated by government-imposed limitations on agricultural water use to rising labor costs and a maze of ever-intensifying regulatory pressures.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2014)

Odd that your article doesn't say anything like "this is because there is no drought".


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Odd that your article doesn't say anything like "this is because there is no drought".


and not so odd that the article mentions Government  Mandated Water Restrictions, so despite the weather, the Government is Mandating Drought.

And like the OP states, we are not suffering. 

We are celebrating with Cabernet and Chardonnay.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Odd that your article doesn't say anything like "this is because there is no drought".


Funny, we have no drought in chicago and the weather folks never say there is no drought.  Who in the F uses that terminology?  Oh, you. What a boob! *LoSiNg*


----------



## mamooth (Sep 10, 2014)

This would be what Elekta calls "not a drought".The dark red is "exceptional drought", as high as the scale goes.

Conclusion: Elektra is delusional.

United States Drought Monitor Home State Drought Monitor


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2014)

So because you have a pretty picture, there is a drought?  Really, this proves your drought?  holy crap again.  Dude, you need to relax a bit.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Ladies and gentlemen, above is a clear example of how someone responds when their argument is completely destroyed.

Pointing out that Southern California gets its water from the north is pointing out the obvious and has nothing to do with anything I said. You created a bizarre argument where last year's grape harvest somehow means that the drought is not serious or having an effect. You cherry picked a single crop as if that is proof of the effects of the drought on the state. The reality is that the region that grows these grapes was not in a drought for the first half of 2013, which is the prime growing season for grapes. The serious drought in that region began _this _year, not in 2013. Furthermore, grapes require less water than many other crops, meaning they will be less effected by drought to begin with.

The reality is that the drought has hurt many people throughout California.
(1) Many communities have had to go without water as water wells have literally run dry.
(2) Ski resorts lost money due to lower snow levels. This has also harmed local businesses that rely on winter tourism to survive.
(3) The drought is expected to cost CA farmers $1 billion in lost revenue.

And guess what? *The grape and wine industry is hurting too! *It helps to actually look at recent data, not data from a year ago when there was no serious drought in the region.

Because of the drought, at least 80 percent of grapes on one 160-acre lot at La Jolla Farming are shriveled and soft, unable to go to market and turned away by wineries. That leaves at least 2 million pounds on the ground to rot. The owners expect to grow 10% of what they normally grow.

So you can keep up your nonsense about the drought not effecting California, and that the media is just making everything up. But back in reality, the rest of us will be addressing the problems and realizing the situation is very, very real.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> View attachment 31710
> 
> 
> > But feel free to keep your head in the sand and pretend like the drought doesn't matter--just be careful. When the rains do come again, the soil will be more prone to flooding, and you might get washed away.
> ...


The rain system affected only Southern California, not the vast majority of the state. And what is ironic about your post is that you provided evidence of exactly what I said would happen...and somehow are trying to use that to prove I was wrong. You are truly embarrassing yourself.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This would be what Elekta calls "not a drought".The dark red is "exceptional drought", as high as the scale goes.
> 
> Conclusion: Elektra is delusional.
> 
> United States Drought Monitor Home State Drought Monitor


ha, ha, it hardly rains is California, from April to November,

How come your map does not include the recent floods, that should at least show a spec on the map?

The author purposely left out all of the August rain and all the rain of September on the 3rd, I wonder if this is why the report got released early.

It is surprising if you read the text, not one mention of the flood in California that killed one person last week.

No mention of any of the August rain.

Its easy to be a liar when you have the Government financed Universities telling the big lie as well.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 31710
> ...



Well, instead of dictating that you are right, prove it. 

At the same time, explain how you explicitly stated we had no rain while a person drowned in flooding is Southern California.

RollingBlunder does not address the Blunder!

RollingBlunder will dictate the truth that we are to follow.

Just like all the other radical leftist activists.

RollingBlunder stated there was no rain, and that when rain came I would be flooded away, rollingblunder stated this as it was raining, after a flood that just killed a person in San Bernardino county.

You can not get more wrong than that.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This would be what Elekta calls "not a drought".The dark red is "exceptional drought", as high as the scale goes.
> 
> Conclusion: Elektra is delusional.
> 
> United States Drought Monitor Home State Drought Monitor



Researching the link, I find we have the Global Warming activist.David Simeral, Western Regional Climate Center, reporting this propaganda.

Where is the August and September Rain in Southern California David, why is it not in your report!!!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 10, 2014)

You're claiming the US government drought maps are a vast conspiracy? Like I said, you're delusional. Only you know the RealTruth, eh?

Could you tell us again about how grapes grown with water from rapidly declining reservoirs proves there's no drought? That bit of non-logic was quite amusing.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> You're claiming the US government drought maps are a vast conspiracy? Like I said, you're delusional. Only you know the RealTruth, eh?
> 
> Could you tell us again about how grapes grown with water from rapidly declining reservoirs proves there's no drought? That bit of non-logic was quite amusing.


Can you show us which Grapes are watered by Reservoir instead of making a bullshit statement off the top of your head. You can not because you lied. 

Can you explain how come the recent California Rain is excluded from the Map and the Report.

The Map is for dummies by the activist, David Simeral.

My OP stands vaild, California is not suffering. Record yields of Grape every year of this drought, Grapes are for wine, I did not cherry pick the grape data, it just stands out as bragging while others suffer the politics

A record harvest of Grapes for Wine while telling the public we can not take a bath or flush our toilets. I bet Obama drank that wine with his Hollywood friends as well as his friends in the rich city of Carmel.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2014)

Nope!


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You're claiming the US government drought maps are a vast conspiracy? Like I said, you're delusional. Only you know the RealTruth, eh?
> ...


He did not lie. The grapes grown in Napa Valley (the most famous wine region in California) get their water from reservoirs, which are being depleted due to lack of rain. Many also get water from groundwater, which is also being depleted. Of course they all get water from rain--but that has been nonexistent.
CALIFORNIA Napa grape growers fret over their future amid severe drought -- Tuesday January 28 2014 -- www.eenews.net

Your ignorance is astounding.



> Can you explain how come the recent California Rain is excluded from the Map and the Report.


The map reflects conditions of 9/2/2014. The rains came several days after that, so obviously are not included. Duh.



> The Map is for dummies by the activist, David Simeral.
> 
> My OP stands vaild, California is not suffering. Record yields of Grape every year of this drought, Grapes are for wine, I did not cherry pick the grape data, it just stands out as bragging while others suffer the politics
> 
> A record harvest of Grapes for Wine while telling the public we can not take a bath or flush our toilets. I bet Obama drank that wine with his Hollywood friends as well as his friends in the rich city of Carmel.


Keep parroting your B.S. As has already been shown to you, CA agriculture is suffering to the tune of what is expected to be $1 billion. Ski resorts had horrible seasons, as did ski towns, because there was simply not any snow. Many grape farmers are also suffering. I have already given you links to data that proves all of this to be true.

Methinks that you are so blinded by your denial of global warming that refuse to the negative effects of the CA drought because you think seeing those effects means global warming is real. In reality, the presence of a drought does not require you to believe in global warming.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



ignorance, try and keep up, your link is from january, my facts clearly show this year's grape harvest was beyond the January expectations and forecast. The article specifically addresses this article.

funny fact, it rained after january, all spring, the grape harvest was fat, above average.

Once again, you prove you can not read and are ignoring all the facts.

My OP is validated by the opposition again.

Now watch this post get ignored, except for maybe some cherry picking.

August and July's farm reports all prove the early January forecasts are wrong.

Further, I got rain in the week in which that report was applicable,  the week before as well which the prior week ignored as well, our rain for august was the opposite of the normal precipitation,  meaning it was a record wet august, for august my region was not in a drought. The drought report ignores facts.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



An objective, informed poster.  What a welcome breath of fresh air.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 hey  watch out for that Tree......................


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> hey  watch out for that Tree......................



So, we're both old enough to remember the George of the Jungle segments on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show.  

Do you have any quality material with which to dispute or refute the comments of poster ShackledNation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Elektra, you are about the stupidest liar on this board.
> 
> http://cdrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/drought-monitor-map.jpg
> 
> ...



^ Local, not Global


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey  watch out for that Tree......................
> ...



OK had to give you props for that 

Signed, 

Lance Link


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey  watch out for that Tree......................
> ...


 dude, I have no idea what he's pointing out. 

Here is a link from Wines and Vines. You tell me is this BS or is this showing that California is reporting record grape production?

that's why I posted what I posted.  George always hit the tree,  I just don't get the inaccurate posting.  Not sure why that is so.  It's easy to investigate on the internet.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 
And it looks like a lot of stompin parties going on for a drought ridden season California Festivals Link

Oh and these types of articles are funny.  Check the picture, it is taken in January when the plants are pruned and are supposed to look like the picture.  Wine News link  The fall is harvest, so at the moment 2104 is not recorded yet.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

ShackledNation's linked article:

*CALIFORNIA:*
*Napa grape growers fret over their future amid severe drought*
Debra Kahn, E&E reporter

ClimateWire: Tuesday, January 28, 2014

YOUNTVILLE, Calif. -- California's drought has farmers worried about protecting Napa Valley's reputation for world-class wines.

It's 75 degrees and cloudless outside, and the conference hall in downtown Yountville -- an enclave of upscale inns, restaurants and tasting rooms -- is filled with more than 100 grape growers, mostly gray-haired, wearing plaid shirts and jeans.

"I've never had sunny weather make me feel so gloomy," said Jon Ruel, director of viticulture and winemaking at Trefethen Family Vineyards and president of Napa Valley Grapegrowers, which includes more than 670 growers, vineyards and associated businesses.





A drought-troubled vineyard in Napa Valley. Photo by Debra Kahn.

Grape farmers gathered here last week to discuss how to protect their fields from record-low rainfall.* Options are limited in the Napa Valley, where farms get all of their water from rain that fills rivers and reservoirs, typically 30 inches per year. This year, grape growers are praying for 8 inches. They've gotten no more than 3.5 inches since the rainy season began in October.*

Growers are anxious and looking for advice. Wine grape production is Napa County's economic engine, producing $657 million in gross revenue in 2012, according to state statistics. And while about 15 percent of wine sold in the United States is from Napa County, it accounts for 31 percent of total retail value, or $10.1 billion, according to a 2012 industry study.

*"I have zero water," said Ashley Bennett, associate vineyard manager for Cain Vineyard and Winery in St. Helena, which specializes in cabernet. "If you had to use all your water last year, then you have no water this year." Her vines are also suffering from Pierce's disease, she said, a bacterial infection spread by insects that dries out leaves and fruit.*

*Most aren't as badly off as Bennett, who acknowledges that her situation is an extreme.* Bennett's vineyard is on a hillside, which doesn't have groundwater wells and relies only on reservoirs that fill with rainwater. *She has two ponds that hold about 32 acre-feet of water total; both are dry*.

*Most areas along the Napa Valley floor have relatively stable supplies of groundwater, so they're not in danger of going totally dry*. And farmers in the valley are taking pains to make that point to regulators. Napa County began studying groundwater levels in 2009. The county is now preparing to build a pipeline to bring recycled water to the Coombsville area, which its survey found was in decline, in contrast to most other areas that had good data.

Peter McCrea, proprietor of Stony Hill Vineyard in St. Helena, is chairman of the county's Groundwater Resources Advisory Committee, which is readying recommendations on how to encourage voluntary groundwater monitoring and conservation. *He said he expected his own output from his hillside farm to drop about 50 percent from last year's yield of 2 tons of grapes per acre.*

"If I'm an optimist, I'd say it'd be about half of what last year was," he said. But he doesn't expect quality to decline. *During the dry years of 2006-07, he said, quality was actually improved.*

"The grapes are more intense," he said. "You don't get as many grapes, but the ones you do get tend to have more intense fruit."

*Adaptation to a 'new reality'*
At last week's meeting, *experts cautioned against trying to grow too many grapes with not enough water*.

"The most challenging thing, because of where we are in the world, is we can't get away with sacrificing quality," said Mike Wolf of Michael Wolf Vineyard Services, which helps operate dozens of farms in the valley. "We just can't go down that road."

Farmers advised their colleagues to* pare back their plants according to the amount of water they have*. Cutting back leaf canopies reduces the amount of energy that leaves can send to grapes, which prevents the vines from growing more shoots. And using slow-release fertilizers can prevent early growth spurts.

"*Focus on a smaller vine if you can accept kind of a reduced crop*," Wolf said.

Farmers can also adjust their watering practices. "If you have the choice to do drip irrigation, it'd be much more efficient than overhead," said Amy Warnock, viticulturist at Orin Swift Cellars. But drip irrigation is also flawed, as it deposits water onto only a small percentage of the soil, Garrett Buckland, a partner at Premiere Viticultural Services, pointed out.

Dry farming, which involves carefully managing rainfall, soil and crop timing, can work, but it's not suited to large, densely planted vineyards, Wolf said.

*"We have to get smarter about how we water and when we water*," Buckland said. Instruments like soil moisture probes; dendrometers, which measure plant growth; and porometers, which measure leaves' CO2 and water vapor conductivity, can help farmers make watering decisions, he said.

As well, Buckland said, farmers in highly visible areas should consider the optics of watering vines with overhead sprinklers during a drought, even if they have adequate supplies. During the daytime, as tourists pass by, "maybe consider turning that off," he said.

They can also take drought into their decisions when planting new vines.

"Maybe we can't grow syrah in Calistoga because it's so thirsty," Wolf said. "If this does in fact become the new reality ... you're making a nominally 25- or 30-year commitment to something that you may not be able to support."

Farmers with well water are deciding whether to start irrigating now to moisten the soil or wait until mid-March, when buds will start to blossom.

*There's still hope that the winter will bring enough rain, but long-range forecasts through April are for more dry weather. The high-pressure zone over Northern California, a result of the polar jet stream, has persisted since March 2013*.

"*Seeing 10 months of this pattern is really unheard of*," Buckland said. "We may not be able to break this pattern before winter is over."

*Worst could be yet to come*
*Growers are also worried about next year's supplies*. As a perennial plant, the grapevine takes two years to bear fruit, so buds that emerge this year won't ripen until next year. *A dry year this year could hamstring bud development*, said Mark Matthews, a viticulture professor at the University of California, Davis.

"What we really haven't seen that could happen is, *if it's dry enough, grapevines actually become damaged and start to die, so you don't get the buds you need for the 2015 season," he said. "That potentially could become devastating, and it's not like when you're growing corn or something when you can just plant again next year. It's a 30-year commitment."*

"This is *becoming more frequent, whether we like it or not*," said Buckland.

The grape growers' association provided farmers at the meeting with information about crop insurance. For basic catastrophic coverage, which pays out if losses exceed 50 percent of historical yield, the U.S. Department of Agriculture pays the entire premium. The payment is set at 55 percent of established market prices. For fuller coverage, growers can choose to insure themselves up to 85 percent of their historic yield.

Outside the community center, grower Mike Applegate discussed insurance with his agent. If his production is below 25 percent of normal, his insurance kicks in, he said. He said it pays out roughly every five years. Farmers have until Jan. 31 to sign up; they'll know whether it was worth it by the end of the year, when they finish harvesting their crops.

*"There's an inch of rain out there," Applegate said. "Jump on it, dude.*"


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> ShackledNation's linked article:
> 
> *CALIFORNIA:*
> *Napa grape growers fret over their future amid severe drought*
> ...


 Crick,  go read the seasons for grape growing here from California Vinyard web site (link)

excerpt:
*"Winter*
During California’s colder winter months, the vines settle into a dormant state and pruning takes place. Just like fruit trees, *higher-quality fruit grows on vines that have been cut back properly*, so in winter when vines have lost their leaves and are almost empty of sap, growers begin pruning. Pruning requires experience and must be done very carefully, as too much will cause less fruit to grow in the coming months and too little may produce lower-quality grapes. Pruning sets the stage for the upcoming crop and is considered a skillful art among most growers and vineyard workers."

I think January is winter. And if you actually go to the web site and read what happens in winter, you'll find they do their pruning then.  that's why in January, you'll see bare plants.  I sent that link earlier. 

We now have to wait for updates on the harvest which is coming.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> Everything is fine, as long as you are a rich wine producer, plenty of water to expand profits while at the same time the people are told we ain't got the water to flush the toilet or take a hot bath.
> 
> Irony?



A few things;

Many of the grapes are grown in the North, where there is plenty of water. Most of the issue with drought in in Southern California due to Brown and the ruling democrats shutting off delta water. 

Secondly, grapes are generally grown with reclaimed water, which is not suitable for drinking.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is fine, as long as you are a rich wine producer, plenty of water to expand profits while at the same time the people are told we ain't got the water to flush the toilet or take a hot bath.
> ...


 32K of posts???????????????????????????? holy crap.  What is your job?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

It takes a special kind of insanity to start a thread proclaiming that California isn't really in a drought when every newspaper in the state is filled with stories about the severity of the drought and the state is under mandatory water use restrictions. 'Eekthetroll' posted that demented OP based, apparently, on some deranged paranoia over a old 1974 movie about political and economic shenanigans over water in LA in 1938.

It takes an even more special, politically motivated kind of insanity to post meaningless drivel in support of that crackpot OP, like ol' JustCrazy did.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It takes a special kind of insanity to start a thread proclaiming that California isn't really in a drought when every newspaper in the state is filled with stories about the severity of the drought and the state is under mandatory water use restrictions. 'Eekthetroll' posted that demented OP based, apparently, on some deranged paranoia over a old 1974 movie about political and economic shenanigans over water in LA in 1938.
> 
> It takes an even more special, politically motivated kind of insanity to post meaningless drivel in support of that crackpot OP, like ol' JustCrazy did.


Not nearly as insane as someone claiming that .14 degree f tmeperatures changes climate and causes sea levels to rise.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a special kind of insanity to start a thread proclaiming that California isn't really in a drought when every newspaper in the state is filled with stories about the severity of the drought and the state is under mandatory water use restrictions. 'Eekthetroll' posted that demented OP based, apparently, on some deranged paranoia over a old 1974 movie about political and economic shenanigans over water in LA in 1938.
> ...


That _would_ be insane....but, of course, you're ridiculously wrong, as usual, this time by a whole order of magnitude. Moron!

*Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[5]*
(source)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So because you have a pretty picture, there is a drought?  Really, this proves your drought?  holy crap again.  Dude, you need to relax a bit.



There is a drought, it's California. Drought and fire are the two constants. 6 years of drought followed by a year of floods, followed by two moderate years. This is the way California is.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So because you have a pretty picture, there is a drought?  Really, this proves your drought?  holy crap again.  Dude, you need to relax a bit.
> ...


 yep, so what?  It isn't unprecendented is it?  so again, so what?  A pretty picture isn't going to change what the actual climate of the state is.  Posting nonsense about the drought is nonsense.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 I'll agree to disagree with you.  It is .08 degree C.  prove me wrong!  again go look at what affect 120PPM of CO2 increase is to the energy feedback.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> yep, so what?  It isn't unprecendented is it?  so again, so what?  A pretty picture isn't going to change what the actual climate of the state is.  Posting nonsense about the drought is nonsense.



Not only is it not "unprecedented," drought in California is the precedent. A drought in California is about as meaningful as a twister in an Oklahoma trailer park.

This isn't even close to the worst drought I've seen, 1975 had this one beat to hell. Plus most of the issue this time is political, with Sacramento simply cutting off water supplied to the central valleys.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is fine, as long as you are a rich wine producer, plenty of water to expand profits while at the same time the people are told we ain't got the water to flush the toilet or take a hot bath.
> ...



politics is water in california,  farmers lost 50% of their water before the so-called "drought".


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It takes a special kind of insanity to start a thread proclaiming that California isn't really in a drought when every newspaper in the state is filled with stories about the severity of the drought and the state is under mandatory water use restrictions. 'Eekthetroll' posted that demented OP based, apparently, on some deranged paranoia over a old 1974 movie about political and economic shenanigans over water in LA in 1938.
> 
> It takes an even more special, politically motivated kind of insanity to post meaningless drivel in support of that crackpot OP, like ol' JustCrazy did.



Two above average years for grape production with links proving so is, "meaningless drivel".

RollingBlunder has an intelligence comprehension problem which leads to bouts of rage and rants.

Another blunder by rollingblunder,  this thread is about california not suffering.

Read the title, its not, "California not suffering drought"

The title is, "California not suffering, drought?".

The difference us clear unless you are blinded with ridiculousness and rage over your opinion and politics.

Again, post the suffering, while we enjoy the fat above average vintage year for non-essential wine.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

If you think grape harvests trump data like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



you're whacked.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> If you think grape harvests trump data like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is whack is you just described a coloring book drawing as "data".

Grow up!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a special kind of insanity to start a thread proclaiming that California isn't really in a drought when every newspaper in the state is filled with stories about the severity of the drought and the state is under mandatory water use restrictions. 'Eekthetroll' posted that demented OP based, apparently, on some deranged paranoia over a old 1974 movie about political and economic shenanigans over water in LA in 1938.
> ...


Yup. In relation to the issue you raised regarding the reality of the severe drought currently happening in California, that is indeed "_meaningless drivel_".






elektra said:


> Another blunder by rollingblunder,  this thread is about california not suffering.
> Read the title, its not, "California not suffering drought"
> The title is, "California not suffering, drought?".
> The difference us clear unless you are blinded with ridiculousness and rage over your opinion and politics.


More retarded drivel. You claimed many times now that the state is not in a drought. You are a delusional crackpot, as the evidence from official sources makes clear.






elektra said:


> Again, post the suffering, while we enjoy the fat above average vintage year for non-essential wine.


Moron!

*As Agriculture Swoons in Drought, West Coast Firms Avoid Worst Effects*
The Wall Street Journal
Sept. 8, 2014
(excerpts)
*California's agriculture industry hasn't been spared, despite conservation efforts. The sector consumes roughly 80% of the state's water, to nourish the states roughly 400 crops. Scorched and shriveled crops and lost jobs are expected to cost California's agriculture industry 17,100 jobs and $2.2 billion this year alone. That would be more than double the $900 million lost in 2009, according to UC Davis estimates.

Almost 60% of the state is experiencing the worst, so-called exceptional drought, conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, a collaboration of the federal government and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. California asked residents to cut water use by 20% and this summer imposed its first-ever statewide water restrictions, levying fines of up to $500 day for violations.

California Drought Could Claim Quarter of Rice Crop*
NBC News
Sept 10, 2014
(excerpts)
*California's ongoing drought is claiming another victim: the state's rice crop. Nearly 25 percent of California's $5 billion rice crop will be lost this year due to lack of water, say experts. And while analysts say the loss is not a crisis just yet, at least one rice producer is ready to call it a day. "If we keep going through this drought, it may make us quit and sell the ranch," said Sherry Polit, who grows organic rice with her family on 1,500 acres in the Northern California town of Maxwell. "We had droughts before, but this is like the third bad one in a row," explained Polit, who also grows organic olives.

With surface water sources drying up from lack of rain, the problem for rice producers is having enough water available to fill rice paddies, said Jim Morris, communications manager for the California Rice Commission. It's not a case of the crop being damaged, he said, so much as it's been reduced as farmers cut back on planting. To try to make money, some California rice producers have turned to selling their water sources, rather than planting a crop this year, said Bruce Linquist, an agricultural researcher at the University of California, Davis. While some farmers could afford to leave their land unplanted, others have opted to just sell water rights.

California Report Warns of Worsening Economic Impacts of Drought*
*Parts of state to experience "pain and poverty," while officials roll out solutions.*
National Geographic
JULY 15, 2014
(excerpts)
*A new scientific and economic report commissioned by California's state government warns that the ongoing drought crisis will cost billions in lost farm revenue and thousands of jobs, although wider impacts on the national food system are unlikely. California's drought is now in its third year and is expected to worsen, thanks to record high temperatures and a low snowpack in the state's mountains. Nearly 80 percent of the state is now in what scientists call "extreme or exceptional" drought, which has caused the state water control board to call for mandatory water restrictions in urban areas and for some holders of agricultural water rights. (See "Storms Get Headlines, but Drought Is a Sneaky, Devastating Game-Changer.")*

*In the midst of this drought crisis, California's Department of Food and Agriculture commissioned a report from scientists and economists at the University of California, Davis. In a press event announcing the report Tuesday, co-author Richard Howitt warned that the state is "running down our bank account [of stored water]." Howitt, a UC Davis professor emeritus of agricultural and natural resource economics, said California's economy is expected to lose a total of $2.2 billion this year as a result of the drought. "What really hurts is we're losing 17,100 jobs," said Howitt. Most of those jobs are seasonal and part-time work in the Central and San Joaquin Valleys. "They are mostly from the sector of society that is least able to roll with the punches," Howitt added. "There are pockets of extreme deprivation where they are out of water and out of jobs... There are going to be more pockets of pain and poverty."*

*According to the UC Davis report, the state's agricultural sector faces a net water shortage of 1.6 million acre-feet this year, which will cause losses of $810 million in crop revenue and $203 million in lost dairy and other livestock value, plus additional groundwater pumping costs of $454 million. These direct costs to agriculture total $1.5 billion. When the job losses are factored in, the total economic impact to the state economy is estimated to be $2.2 billion. Despite the California drought, Howitt said most consumers around the country aren't likely to notice any significant impacts on food prices or availability this year. Many of California's important vegetable crops will continue to be watered by groundwater, although he notes that there is growing concern about the long-term viability of that arrangement. Citrus crops are likely to be affected but, Howitt added, "don't worry, your Napa wines will be just fine, as will Monterey wines."*


*****


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

The only thing you posted rollingblunder is there "could", be a loss of some rice, I guess we have to wait until the rice is harvested to know.

Until then the grape harvest is above average.

How about peaches, they got harvested, what was the yield? 

I bet it was real good, I bought some nice fat california peaches for under two bucks a pound.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


WOW!!! If, after reading the articles I just cited and quoted, ALL you can grasp from all that info is that there could be some loss of rice, you are obviously even more retarded and insane than it earlier seemed....and frankly, you have always seemed to be off the rails and bat-poop crazy, so...


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> How is it so, that during what we are told, is, "the worst drought in history", that California produces a record harvest of Grapes.
> 
> Seems awful short sighted, even mean, that California's Liberal/Democrats are more concerned with their "upper class wine", than saving water.
> 
> ...



Your entire post is pure bullshit! You did not link to facts. You cherry picked (grape picked) crops & linked to articles that fit your agenda. Facts prove you are a lair.

Grape production dropped. 2013 Grape harvest was 7.8 million metric tons, 2014 Grape harvest was 7.2 million metric tons.
California Corn Production for 2013 was 35.1 million bushel. For 2014 it was only 19.3 million bushel.
California Rice Production for 2013 was 23,787 tons. For 2014 it was only 18,404 tons.
California Cotton Production for 2013 was 943,000 bales. For 2014 it was only 725,000 bales.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

The 2014 is not picked yet and what


KissMy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > How is it so, that during what we are told, is, "the worst drought in history", that California produces a record harvest of Grapes.
> ...



You are comparing the record setting total of 2013 grape harvest to 2014 which has not finished harvest.

How is that possible? That is like calling 2014 a year of drought when the year is only half over.

cherry picked? My thread shows we are not suffering, our grape harvest is above average this year, we are not suffering. Grapes for wine is the topic  because it's the snobs who drink our expensive wine. Water for the rich, for the grapes, not for the people, wine is non-essential hence the relevance to California not suffering.

Wine for the rich snob politicians and environmentalists while the propaganda screams drought.

rice, that gets harvested mid to late september, it's easy for all to see who is full of bullshit.

there is a reason I used figures from 2013, it was not "cherry picking", it was because that years harvest is over. 2014 has just begun.

Now how did you come up with end of year harvest figures for rice and grapes when the harvest has just begun?

Again, I started a thread about if we are suffering, activist like to argue everything but the OP.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

How is it that you think grape harvest trump these:


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 11, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> (1) The record crop growth was _last _year, which is 2013. In other words...before the drought. So the OP article is irrelevant to what this year's crop yield will be, which is not yet known because the year is not over, and which will most definitely be less than 2013.
> 
> (2) CA is most definitely in a drought. I live here, and I see it with my own eyes every day. The drought is very real and very serious, regardless of the validity of global warming.
> 
> (3) The above two points are all that needs to be said in this thread.




Yes, yes, save the fish bait and dump the reservoir water into the sea. 

That's what happens in  Northern  Cali.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is fine, as long as you are a rich wine producer, plenty of water to expand profits while at the same time the people are told we ain't got the water to flush the toilet or take a hot bath.
> ...


^^^ Excactly^^^

I grow grapes.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> The 2014 is not picked yet and what
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> ...


USDA production numbers count harvested & unharvested crop. They are the latest USDA crop production numbers that were released today. Grape production is the lowest in over 10 years!


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


So then you know we had a record harvest last year and this year is thus far above average for grapes.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

*Your entire OP post is pure bullshit! You cherry picked (grape picked) crop harvest from last year & linked to articles that fit your agenda. Today's Facts prove you are a lair. Grape production & California crops listed below are at 10 year lows.

2013 Grape harvest was 7.8 million metric tons, 2014 Grape harvest was 7.2 million metric tons.
California Corn Production for 2013 was 35.1 million bushel. For 2014 it was only 19.3 million bushel.
California Rice Production for 2013 was 23,787 tons. For 2014 it was only 18,404 tons.
California Cotton Production for 2013 was 943,000 bales. For 2014 it was only 725,000 bales. 

September 9th 2014 Drought Monitor*





*September 6th 2014 Palmer Drought Index*


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is fine, as long as you are a rich wine producer, plenty of water to expand profits while at the same time the people are told we ain't got the water to flush the toilet or take a hot bath.
> ...


Actually the grapes are mostly grown in the south or central california. Not much in the north. If you do not know that much how accurate is your knowledge.

Grapes are generally grown with reclaimed water, I got to call pure bullshit on that.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

KissMy said:


> *September 9th 2014 Drought Monitor*


I see you can color,


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> How is it that you think grape harvest trump these:


Because the grape harvest is what was picked, it was above average and set a record last yeat, this year is not over.

The actual harvest will always trump a colored drawing posted in a thread, I would think you would stop with the pure stupidity.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


My link is from January of 2014. Your link is from the grape harvest of 2013, *not this year*. You have been called out on that lie multiple times now. The reality is that the drought is harming communities and businesses across California, and doing long-term damage to our groundwater and reservoirs.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How is it that you think grape harvest trump these:
> ...


How does looking only at how big the grape harvest may be determine that the drought in California does not have any negative effects? You are cherry picking a single crop. Furthermore, you keep pointing to last year's record grape harvest, which you continually refuse to acknowledge was the result of a _wetter _year in the regions where grapes are grown (the drought had not yet started in those areas).


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2014)

You know, I thought ol' Frankie Boy hit the record for ignoring reality, but Elektra and his buddy, JC, have exceeded even Frankie Boy. 

But, unfortunately, no matter how much you two idiots lie about reality, reality will not change. Would be nice if we could just tell enough lies to change what is happening to the farms in California. If that could work, we would actually have a use for "Conservatives".


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> You know, I thought ol' Frankie Boy hit the record for ignoring reality, but Elektra and his buddy, JC, have exceeded even Frankie Boy.
> 
> But, unfortunately, no matter how much you two idiots lie about reality, reality will not change. Would be nice if we could just tell enough lies to change what is happening to the farms in California. If that could work, we would actually have a use for "Conservatives".


Nice to see old crock come in to flame, troll and run. I guess old crock got tired of getting his ass handed to him in debate hence it's flame and run.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


A wetter region? Which region is that? Careful, best do some google searching before you make yourself a bigger fool.

In these very threads it's stated that this drought started at the end of 2011, now you claim otherwise, I should see what your comments in that thread are.

Now how about telling us were that wet region is so I Xanax ha e fun making you look the fool. Go ahead, I doubt you will reply cause your search will put a your foot in your mouth.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


The grape harvest this year, thus far is above average, already linked, last year was a record year, both years within this, "drought".

Above average during a so called drought is not suffering.

Further, your link for 2014 grape production is from january of 2014, as I have already pointed out, hence your OPINION is wrong, try posting something from September of 2014.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2014)

Elektra, there is no one on this board that could flame your thread worse than you yourself have. You have gone from ridiculous to completely insane. There is a drought, a record breaking one, in California currently. And your denial of that, in the face of all the evidence presented by people of all political persuasions in this thread is a sad look into your psyche.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

*Eelektra's entire OP post is pure bullshit! You cherry picked (grape picked) crop harvest from last year & linked to articles that fit your agenda. Today's Facts prove you are a lair. Grape production & California crops listed below are at 10 year lows.

2013 Grape harvest was 7.8 million metric tons, 2014 Grape harvest was 7.2 million metric tons.
California Corn Production for 2013 was 35.1 million bushel. For 2014 it was only 19.3 million bushel.
California Rice Production for 2013 was 23,787 tons. For 2014 it was only 18,404 tons.
California Cotton Production for 2013 was 943,000 bales. For 2014 it was only 725,000 bales.

September 9th 2014 Drought Monitor*






*September 6th 2014 Palmer Drought Index*


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Elektra, there is no one on this board that could flame your thread worse than you yourself have. You have gone from ridiculous to completely insane. There is a drought, a record breaking one, in California currently. And your denial of that, in the face of all the evidence presented by people of all political persuasions in this thread is a sad look into your psyche.


I said we are not suffering and setting records producing wine. 

All political persuasions? Like who.

Don't matter, a record harvest is a record harvest and you can not flame that away.

Nice try Old Crock, as in a crock of shit.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Elektra, there is no one on this board that could flame your thread worse than you yourself have. You have gone from ridiculous to completely insane. There is a drought, a record breaking one, in California currently. And your denial of that, in the face of all the evidence presented by people of all political persuasions in this thread is a sad look into your psyche.
> ...



How on earth is 2014's 10 year low grape production a record???????


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

KissMy said:


> *Eelektra's entire OP post is pure bullshit! You cherry picked (grape picked) crop harvest from last year & linked to articles that fit your agenda. Today's Facts prove you are a lair. Grape production & California crops listed below are at 10 year lows.
> 
> 2013 Grape harvest was 7.8 million metric tons, 2014 Grape harvest was 7.2 million metric tons.
> California Corn Production for 2013 was 35.1 million bushel. For 2014 it was only 19.3 million bushel.
> ...


You wish to compare a record year of grape production (in a drought year at that, 2013) with 2014 which is not over?

Thus far 2014 is above average while our grape harvest is far from over.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


You do realize that the drought does not effect every region in California equally, do you not? You are making yourself look more and more foolish with each post. I have already been over this, but since you keep forgetting let me refresh your memory.

Actually click on the link this time, it has monthly maps of the drought conditions dating back to 2011.
193 drought maps reveal just how thirsty california has become - LA Times

From December 2012 through the end of April 2013, the vast majority of Northern California (including the prime grape-growing regions) where not in any drought. In fact, from April 24th 2012 through Mid-June 2013 those wine growing regions never experienced more than a moderate drought. Then conditions got worse, and January this year they entered extreme drought.

Your grape harvest data was from 2013, a year where the prime grape-growing regions of California were not in drought at all, and at worst towards the end of the growing season where only in moderate drought. Contrast that to the prior year, which was actually _drier_ in that region in 2013. Over the past 3 years, 2014 was the driest for this region, followed by _2012. _2013 was actually the wettest.

So now that your cherrypicked data has once again been debunked, please refute all the other posters who have given you the actual numbers of how agriculture is doing. Also feel free to refute the revenue losses of the ski resorts, which you continually ignore.

There is a drought in California, it is having negative affects, and you are an imbecile for denying it.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > So.....it seems that ol' 'eekthetroll' is simply full-on crazy and completely around the bend.....
> ...


Wow, this link says above average for grape production in 2014.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> Thus far 2014 is above average while our grape harvest is far from over.



The USDA has already counted the crop in the fields & the harvest. 2014 grape production is a 10 year low!


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

KissMy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



But not a 11 year low, or a 12 year low, or even 20 year low, why did you CHERRY PICK, ten.

Further I stated 2013 set a record.

A better question is how can you claim a ten year low in 2014 before the harvest is over.

Either way, above average during a drought is not suffering, is it.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2014)

[Q years, UOTE="?KissMy, post: 9787250, member: 21241"]





elektra said:


> Thus far 2014 is above average while our grape harvest is far from over.



The USDA has already counted the crop in the fields & the harvest. 2014 grape production is a 10 year low![/QUOTE]
Still above average, still follows a record year.

How come you did not go back, 11 years?

So again how do you explain we are suffering with above average yields?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Crop production usually increases every year due to ever improving genetics & technology to keep up with the demand of a growing population. Falling a decade backwards is a huge setback caused entirely by weather that could not be overcome by the best ever genetics & technology.

Again the USDA has a rigorous crop inventorying system that counts crops in the field. They start out with the optimum production numbers & keep subtracting yields as crop scouting uncovers weather, disease, insects, weeds, pests & harvest problems that decrease yields. The current USDA numbers are usually optimistic due to many unforeseen crop destructions to come before the years end. The actual harvest will fall below the current counts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2014)

LOL. Well, bedtime, and I'll raise a glass of port to Elektra's continueing abysmal stupidity. Gotta give the loco credit for consistancy.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Ok I just went back to 2002 Grape Production was 7.4 million metric tons, so the 2014's 7.2 million metric tons of Grapes will be a 12 year low. Are you happy now?????


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 11, 2014)

Good grief!  How did I find myself in this thread??
This is not discussion.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


No, the grape harvest for this year is


elektra said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > *Eelektra's entire OP post is pure bullshit! You cherry picked (grape picked) crop harvest from last year & linked to articles that fit your agenda. Today's Facts prove you are a lair. Grape production & California crops listed below are at 10 year lows.
> ...


2013 was not a drought year for the primary grape producing regions of California. In fact, it was a wetter year for those regions than 2012, as I already pointed out. Stop repeating your lie.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Lol. So the fact that grape-production could possibly be at an even _lower _historical low than 10 years proves crops are doing unusually _well? _That things might be even worse refutes your arguments further.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


No, the fact that its an above average, and where did you point out its at a ten year low, you said it, but I do not recall the figures being posted.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...





ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


80 % of 160 acres is 120 acres, 120 acres is only 0.00015 % of the total acreage of grapes in California, I thought you were joking with this post.

Further the "report" clearly states "District didn't give us the water", which is political, this particular farm is a new farm, not an old farm with grand-fathered water rights, hence they lost 120 acres.

How come they did not report the total loss for Kern County? Or the total loss for this farm. How come you did not post the losses for the biggest farms in Kern county?

Is not concentrating on 160 acres, cherry picking?

There is much that is sour, in this Grape link of yours, like they say they could not sell the grapes to wineries, which is a no-brainer, they do not produce wine grapes. Further, because 2013 and 2012 were record years for wine grapes, there tanks are all full, they are not purchasing any grapes not already contracted for. This year they overplanted wine grapes, there will be a glut and losses becuase of this, not the drought.

Further the report is from Aug. 24th? Do you expect to be taken serious two months into a five month harvest when the company you use as an example is still selling grapes, according to their website they will sell grapes until the end of November.

How about this, the supermarkets are full of grapes at a fair price, I can buy all the grapes I want, go ahead, check it out yourself, go to the supermarket and see if you can not fill your cart full of grapes if you want, at 2 bucks a pound.

You posted so much bullshit in so little time with so little thought its impossible to address it all.

You make claims about 2014 which are impossible to substantiate because the crop reports are not in.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 12, 2014)

2000 Grape harvest was 7.5 million metric tons, 2014 Grape production 7.2 million metric tons. This years crop yield is a 15 year low not seen since 1999. Every years harvest should be a record year, because advanced genetics, technology & education consistently increase production to keep up with increasing populations consumption. This years drought set grape production back 15 years. The most advanced advanced genetics, technology & education in history could not overcome the California drought to increase production as it should have.

California's 25 year grape crush totals increased on average as it has throughout history, but 2014 will be a 15 year setback due to drought.

California Grape Crush Annual Totals shown below.

Year / Tons Grapes Crushed
1988  =  760
1989  =  872
1990  =  804
1991  =  840
1992  =  888
1993  =  979
1994  =  936
1995  =  1,052
1996  =  1,079
1997  =  1,461
1998  =  1,333
1999  =  1,422
2000  =  1,816
2001  =  1,706
2002  =  1,817
2003  =  1,634
2004  =  1,639
2005  =  2,235
2006  =  1,874
2007  =  1,875
2008  =  1,676
2009  =  2,078
2010  =  2,051
2011  =  1,920
2012  =  2,292
2013  =  2,416


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2014)

KissMy said:


> 2000 Grape harvest was 7.5 million metric tons, 2014 Grape production 7.2 million metric tons. This years crop yield is a 15 year low not seen since 1999. Every years harvest should be a record year, because advanced genetics, technology & education consistently increase production to keep up with increasing populations consumption. This years drought set grape production back 15 years. The most advanced advanced genetics, technology & education in history could not overcome the California drought to increase production as it should have.
> 
> California's 25 year grape crush totals increased on average as it has throughout history, but 2014 will be a 15 year setback due to drought.
> 
> ...


Then quote the 2014 total for the crush report, you are not doing that, you are making a claim for 2014 when there is no data, as you just posted.

Further, you are posting the Crush Report, as in how much is crushed, correct. What if the entire harvest is not crushed, like lets say 2012 and 2014 are record highs, which is a fact, records during the three year drought at that. So is the entire harvest going to be crushed after a record year? The answer is no. The reason being is there is no storage for new Grape Juice. The wineries are at capacity and will not be purchasing any un-contracted grapes.

As I have pointed out.

Still, Kissmy is making a claim with zero proof, the Crush Report for this year will be released after the harvest, not before.

The drought is having zero effect on wine, in fact the price should come down with the glut of wine being produced. 

Here is an article on the last of storage for the 2014 harvest, in a severe year of drought, Wine Grapes will not be crushed because there is too much Grapes being produced. So your idea that the Crush Report will reflect drought proves the opposite, it shows that in the last three years of drought, it has not effected the production of Wine Grapes

Winegrapes New acreage helps offset drought impacts




\

*Winegrapes: New acreage helps offset drought impacts *
22 Share on emailShare on print 
Issue Date: August 13, 2014
By Steve Adler





Winegrape grower Joe Valente of Kautz Farms in Lodi uses a refractometer to check the brix level on sauvignon grapes that are scheduled to be harvested as soon as the desired level is achieved. 
Photo/Steve Adler












Although per-acre yields may be down in some regions due to drought and other concerns, California farmers expect to produce another large winegrape crop this year, as a result of increased acreage. Winegrape harvest has started throughout California, primarily for early varieties of white grapes that are destined to become sparkling wines.

Government estimates issued last week placed California winegrape acreage at 570,000 acres in 2013, up from 508,000 the previous year. About 45,000 of the 2013 winegrape acres were classified as non-bearing.

With the harvest beginning in most areas from 10 days to two weeks earlier than usual, the biggest concern among growers is that many wineries do not yet appear prepared to receive the grapes.

"Being this early, I don't believe the wineries were prepared to open on time, so right out of the gate we had some quality issues because of early ripeness and delays on the winery side," Tulare County winegrape grower JR Shannon said. "We've barely been picking for two weeks and it is already showing signs that the winery tanks are still full from last year and they aren't very eager to get grapes in right away."

Noting that harvest will continue for several more weeks, Shannon said many wineries haven't even opened yet.

"The early signs are that it is going to be a long, non-grower-friendly season and the wineries are showing no excitement about anything except pinot grigio. We spent a lot of money planting these new vineyards for them and they are not cooperating in getting the grapes into the wineries," he said.

That view was supported by Nat DiBuduo, president and CEO of Allied Grape Growers in Fresno, who said there is real concern among growers who don't have contracts with wineries.

"We are getting reports of some of the larger wineries that have decided to bottle as needed, which means the tanks are full. We know the 2012 crop and the 2013 crop were big, and what that has created is that they aren't buying any more grapes than what has been contracted for. And there are a lot of grapes that aren't contracted," he said.

DiBuduo said the vast majority of grapes are under long-term contracts, but there are some that don't have contracts and growers in that situation are just waiting for wineries to start buying them.

"I hope the wineries start to realize that this is going to be a lighter crop. They will all honor their contracts, but I am hopeful that they will recognize the smaller crop and buy these other grapes. The speculation is that some of these wineries will come out with lower prices when all of these growers are in panic mode," he said.

In Lodi, winegrape grower Joe Valente of Kautz Farms said harvest at his vineyards would begin this week, putting it 10 days earlier than usual.

"It is probably one of the earliest or second-to-the-earliest starts that I have seen here in Lodi in the past 35 years. We are starting this week, but it all depends on the sugars. Ideally, once we get started we can keep going, but it is all dictated by the sugars," he said.

Valente also expressed concern about a potential shortage of tank space for this year's grapes.

"The last two years were large crops, and how empty the tanks are going into harvest will dictate how much we will be able to pick. It depends on the varietals that are in demand. They will find room in the tanks for certain varieties that are in demand," he said.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

Elektra honey, where does your article say there's been no drought?


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


You have no idea what cherry picking is.


elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


You clearly do not understand how crop reporting is done. You do understand that the harvest is estimated once the crops are growing, not after they are picked? And the estimates tend to _overestimate _crop production.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2014)

blah, blah, blah, you do understand that every single store in the USA has grapes for under 2$ lb, fat juicy sweet grapes, after 3 years of the drought you say destroyed 80% of the Grapes, ShakledNation, how do you explain fresh juicy grapes so far into a drought while you scream that their are no Grapes this year.

Curious I say.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 13, 2014)

Over the past few years commodity prices across the board have tanked. 3 years ago I was selling #2 Field Corn for $8 per bushel. This year I can only get $3 per bushel. That's a 62% price drop and the crop ain't even ready to harvest yet.
*Corn Prices*





Grape prices have only fallen slightly by comparison.

Today Aldi is selling Fresh California Green & Red Grapes for $1.58 per 2-lb pack.

Last year they were selling Fresh California Green & Red Grapes for $1.78 per 2-lb pack.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Last year, 2013, is before the drought that has been going on since the end 2011?


The drought did not begin state-wide at the end of 2011, nor were there serious drought conditions in the region that grows grapes. As to the article I am responding to, the wine region in reference was not in drought at all in the first half of 2013, but in fact was _even wetter _than the prior year (hence the higher crop yields). Only at the end of 2013 did it even begin to experience any significant levels of drought, and by that time the grapes had already been harvested (harvesting season for grapes is around August).
192 drought maps reveal just how thirsty California has become - LA Times

Conditions began to worsen across the state towards the end of 2013, and the state of emergency was declared January of this year. Sorry, but your grape example doesn't discount anything. It only shows you are misinformed.

.[/QUOTE]

If ShakledNation has his way, we are to ignore record grape harvests while being told we are in a drought over 30 months old, as posted in this thread and this link;

California suffering through SEVERE climate change US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

California Facing Worst Drought on Record NOAA Climate.gov



> ShakledNation, more like ShakledBrain


Ladies and gentlemen, above is a clear example of how someone responds when their argument is completely destroyed.

Pointing out that Southern California gets its water from the north is pointing out the obvious and has nothing to do with anything I said. You created a bizarre argument where last year's grape harvest somehow means that the drought is not serious or having an effect. You cherry picked a single crop as if that is proof of the effects of the drought on the state. The reality is that the region that grows these grapes was not in a drought for the first half of 2013, which is the prime growing season for grapes. The serious drought in that region began _this _year, not in 2013. Furthermore, grapes require less water than many other crops, meaning they will be less effected by drought to begin with.

The reality is that the drought has hurt many people throughout California.
(1) Many communities have had to go without water as water wells have literally run dry.
(2) Ski resorts lost money due to lower snow levels. This has also harmed local businesses that rely on winter tourism to survive.
(3) The drought is expected to cost CA farmers $1 billion in lost revenue.

And guess what? *The grape and wine industry is hurting too! *It helps to actually look at recent data, not data from a year ago when there was no serious drought in the region.

Because of the drought, at least 80 percent of grapes on one 160-acre lot at La Jolla Farming are shriveled and soft, unable to go to market and turned away by wineries. That leaves at least 2 million pounds on the ground to rot. The owners expect to grow 10% of what they normally grow.

So you can keep up your nonsense about the drought not effecting California, and that the media is just making everything up. But back in reality, the rest of us will be addressing the problems and realizing the situation is very, very real.[/QUOTE]

shaklednation, how come you never address the posts of yours that I point out are nothing but propaganda like this one, watch what happens following one link of ShakledNation's, his whole argument falls apart.

We are to believe 80% of the Table Grape Harvest is lost, that prices in stores will reflect that. ShakledNation is wrong.

California drought impacting state s grape and wine industries - KSHB.com



> Driving by the La Jolla Farming grape vines, things look lush. But study them closer and profits are hitting the ground.
> 
> Jesse Rodriquez is the manager for the farm.
> 
> He says because of the drought, at least 80 percent of grapes on one 160-acre lot are shriveled and soft, unable to go to market and turned away by wineries. That leaves at least 2 million pounds on the ground to rot.



La Jolla Farming inc. is the farm from Delano Ca., in Kern County. I guess I will not find cheap grapes or any grapes from Delano, Ca., lets say where I am now, in Chattanooga?

Contact Us



> * La Jolla Farming, Inc.  La Jolla Cold Storage, LLC.*
> P.O. Box 247 31110 Schuster Road
> Delano, Ca. 93216



Well, here is a little bit of good news.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2014)

Reality.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Reality.



Yes, Old Crock, Reality. How about joining the covversation with something other than your great grandsons page from his coloring book.

Colored pictures are reality? How so Old Crock.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2014)

Here's the things to remember

 a) it's local not global

b) Er, it's warmer local, so that's global warming

c) Er, it's climate changes so it can be either local or global

d) Denier!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2014)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Reality.
> ...



OK, dumb fuck, I was over in Malheur County, Oregon, last week. Note that it is in extreme drought. And that is exactly what I saw. How about you growing up, and learning to say that you were wrong when it is so damned evident to all on the board.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Damn Old Crock, cuss words? Grow up? Learn? Wrong?  Is that four flames in one post, in a sentence. Damn you are good.

Too bad you did not post a pic of the extreme drought you saw. Unlike you Old Crock, while I am out, I think of what I will post, I know I will post here in response to Old Crock, I know you will be vile and mean, so I take pics of what I see, knowing that I am actually, "REPORTING", not just posting my opinion.

Old Crock, this is the new media you here about, where people actually can report what they see. I know its not CNN, but maybe with a little polish and marketing, the voices like mine, that matter, that actually can report in real time, will be heard.

How about this pic of the "extreme drought" depicted in the drought monitor.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Malheur County, let me check, yep Old Crock, you were in a desert, that is why it looked so dry.

Malheur County Climate



> *Introduction*
> Malheur County lies along the southern part of the Idaho border. It is wholly within Climate Division 9 (Southeastern Oregon) established by the National Climatic Data Center. Below is a description of the climate of Division 9 followed by specific descriptions of Malheur County. Climate tables for various parameters, as observed at long-term climate stations in Malheur County, are included below.
> 
> *Climate Division 9 — Southeastern Oregon*
> ...



I guess people are just dumb, they drive through a Desert, and just because they see a Drought Monitor that is a Colored Drawing they believe the propaganda.

Besides Old Crock, I simply stated we are not suffering, I pointed that out to you specifically once more, Old Crock proves that he does not comprehend everything he reads or posts


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 14, 2014)

Elektra, I know this is hard for you to understand, but the drought that has been going on for the past 30 months or so has not been going on in the grape producing regions of California for the past 30 months. The record harvest were in 2013, a year when those grape producing regions were actually wetter than the prior year during the early months of the year. They were not in a drought.

Since you have failed to respond to this point (I do not count ignoring it and reposting "But we hads record grapes harvest!!" as a response), there is really nothing more to say. You have chosen to remain ignorant, and nobody with a brain will take you seriously.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 14, 2014)

2011:





2014











Yes, reality.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Elektra, I know this is hard for you to understand, but the drought that has been going on for the past 30 months or so has not been going on in the grape producing regions of California for the past 30 months. The record harvest were in 2013, a year when those grape producing regions were actually wetter than the prior year during the early months of the year. They were not in a drought.
> 
> Since you have failed to respond to this point (I do not count ignoring it and reposting "But we hads record grapes harvest!!" as a response), there is really nothing more to say. You have chosen to remain ignorant, and nobody with a brain will take you seriously.



Post the relevant drought monitor maps for the exact periods you speak of.

That is the weekly map of California, which you have had no objection to in this thread.
So instead of running your mouth, run you mouse and go get the relevant drought monitors.

We are in a drought for 3 years, except when it comes to reality, to explain away discrepancies we here stuff like while you can not say the whole state was in drought the whole time. Yet that is what you do when stating the drought lasted 3 years.

"3 year drought, hail and brimstone is falling from the sky. ", the activists scream

"but look, rain, grapes, fruits, grass".

"well, but, uh, duh, that was a good year in a small place, that does not count"



 

Look, during the worst drought ever, a three year drought, I do not only have to speak of the great grape harvest, above average this year, I can actually point pictures of the Hay Fields being watered through irrigation and rain, in the shadow of the Diamond Valley Lake/Reservoir.

Hay is for Horses, Horses are for recreation, is California suffering drought if we can feed animals we only use on an occasional weekend for fun.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, that is a cut/paste from google

This is reality, a pic I took, from the plane, of two full southern California reservoirs.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 14, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Elektra, I know this is hard for you to understand, but the drought that has been going on for the past 30 months or so has not been going on in the grape producing regions of California for the past 30 months. The record harvest were in 2013, a year when those grape producing regions were actually wetter than the prior year during the early months of the year. They were not in a drought.
> ...


I already did. Multiple times. Refer to post 87.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 14, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > 2011:
> ...


These same pictures have appeared on multiple news sites. The fact they appear in google search does not make them false images. They are still reality, and you are still an idiot.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


A link to the LA Times? That covers you, hardly!

You are stating that certain periods got more rain. The Drought Monitor is not reporting rain, not at all. 
Linking to the LA Times is propaganda, ShakledNation is making a claim comparing the rain totals for a very specific region in California, you can not use something as vague as the LA Times posting colored pictures to make the claim that one period was wetter than the other in a specific region. 

Is that how you think, you see the LA Times article and determine by that colored pictures what the specific precipitation totals are.

The Drought Monitor is propaganda, so much so I started a thread showing specifically how and why.

Drought Monitor Is Propaganda US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 14, 2014)

elektra said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


My claim is the regions were not in drought for the first half of 2013. Those claims are supported. Sorry, you fail again.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


Bullshit, you specifically stated, "wetter", further you were vague, you never stated which months, which weeks, nothing. You spoke of specific regions without saying specifically when, you just said, "significantly wetter"

But either way, you validate the OP, California is not suffering, you can buy cheap grapes from the region you said lost 80% of the Grapes.

You bring this other bull up, to distract, from the obvious. 

You can not have fat cheap grapes from a state that is suffering extreme drought.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 14, 2014)

California is suffering from drought, sorry. Not going to debate the obvious any further.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> California is suffering from drought, sorry. Not going to debate the obvious any further.


ShackledNation, you have yet to debate,

ShackeledNation, how come we get Grapes from the County you claim lost 80% of the crop, Kern County.

Thanks for telling all that ShackeledNation will now run from all posts ShackeledNation made within this thread.

California is not suffering, least of all our horses.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

I don't see anyone debating the flatness of the Earth either.  Cowards.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> I don't see anyone debating the flatness of the Earth either.  Cowards.


 Can  you say 'Tard'?


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

I could, but it is a term I choose not to use.  It's use is cruel and offensive to a group that have nothing to do with this discussion.

My point was that debating whether or not California is currently in a drought is just as meaningful as debating whether or not the Earth is flat - that is, not at all.  My use of the term "cowards" was intended to be facetious - that people were afraid to discuss whether or not the Earth was flat.  But "coward" is also a term whose use is rarely if ever justified and even though I was not addressing it to you, I should not have used it.  My apologies if I offended you (or anyone else with it).  Obviously there are folks here of whom I am not fond, but I do not feel any of you are cowards.


----------



## elektra (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> I could, but it is a term I choose not to use.  It's use is cruel and offensive to a group that have nothing to do with this discussion.
> 
> My point was that debating whether or not California is currently in a drought is just as meaningful as debating whether or not the Earth is flat - that is, not at all.  My use of the term "cowards" was intended to be facetious - that people were afraid to discuss whether or not the Earth was flat.  But "coward" is also a term whose use is rarely if ever justified and even though I was not addressing it to you, I should not have used it.  My apologies if I offended you (or anyone else with it).  Obviously there are folks here of whom I am not fond, but I do not feel any of you are cowards.


The thread is about suffering, drought is subjective, the drought map is pure propaganda.

Crick does not debate, just dictates, as those in power dictate.

Post the suffering crick, that is easy, right

California is fighting a political water war. 

I have shown the facts, agriculture in california is fat and rich, historic levels.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

Do you have precipitation data that disagrees with the state' drought maps?  That parts of the state have done well in years past growing grapes - the only "facts" I've seen come from you - is hardly sufficient justification to call the state's water data false.

I've collected a number of data graphics below from as many different sources as I could find in a quick Google search.  Do you really want to claim that all these different people are lying to the public?  Consider the consequences of such a choice on their part.  They'd risk their jobs.  They'd risk going to jail.  And for what?

Show us a precipitation map of southern California that does NOT show a precipitation shortfall.  If you have no such thing, have the decency to admit it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you have precipitation data that disagrees with the state' drought maps?  That parts of the state have done well in years past growing grapes - the only "facts" I've seen come from you - is hardly sufficient justification to call the state's water data false.
> 
> I've collected a number of data graphics below from as many different sources as I could find in a quick Google search.  Do you really want to claim that all these different people are lying to the public?  Consider the consequences of such a choice on their part.  They'd risk their jobs.  They'd risk going to jail.  And for what?
> 
> Show us a precipitation map of southern California that does NOT show a precipitation shortfall.  If you have no such thing, have the decency to admit it.


hmmm...I thought there was a three drought.  Your first graph doesn't show a drought in 2013.  How can that be?

And your graph shows dry in January in northern Illinois and we had record snow fall.  how can that be?  Dude, you're being duped.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> I could, but it is a term I choose not to use.  It's use is cruel and offensive to a group that have nothing to do with this discussion.
> 
> My point was that debating whether or not California is currently in a drought is just as meaningful as debating whether or not the Earth is flat - that is, not at all.  My use of the term "cowards" was intended to be facetious - that people were afraid to discuss whether or not the Earth was flat.  But "coward" is also a term whose use is rarely if ever justified and even though I was not addressing it to you, I should not have used it.  My apologies if I offended you (or anyone else with it).  Obviously there are folks here of whom I am not fond, but I do not feel any of you are cowards.


 The fact is you don't have enough facts.  Do you even know what the definition is?


----------



## Crick (Sep 16, 2014)

What the fuck are you talking about?  The gigabytes of precipitation, temperature, soil moisture and crop data that the Drought Monitor folks collect and maintain tell us that southern California is in a drought.  What facts do you have exactly?  A good grape crop in Napa valley?  Give us a fooking break.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  The gigabytes of precipitation, temperature, soil moisture and crop data that the Drought Monitor folks collect and maintain tell us that southern California is in a drought.  What facts do you have exactly?  A good grape crop in Napa valley?  Give us a fooking break.


 Dude, what is the usual climate?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 17, 2014)

Many California residents have run out of tap water. They now must haul in drinking water.

Due to the lack of water to flush toilets or operate sewer systems, California has the highest number of housing units using outhouses or privies (67,865) of any state.


----------



## elektra (Sep 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  The gigabytes of precipitation, temperature, soil moisture and crop data that the Drought Monitor folks collect and maintain tell us that southern California is in a drought.  What facts do you have exactly?  A good grape crop in Napa valley?  Give us a fooking break.


Napa  Valley? 

Napa Valley is a tiny percentage of total grape production in california.

Less than 5% of California Wine is produced in Napa Valley. Crick, you have so little understanding of this, my posts always referenced the entire state, not the cherry picked points you make about the tiniest percentage that Napa Valley accounts for.

Yep, you see red looking at the propaganda, which the drought monitor is, California us getting another record setting day in rain, a record august and september, yet the weekly snapshot of this, reflects zero, how can weekly records not be reflected in a drought monitor.

Colored pictures is all you got, hardly facts.


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2014)

God are you stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2014)

Understatement concerning Elektra.


----------



## elektra (Sep 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  The gigabytes of precipitation, temperature, soil moisture and crop data that the Drought Monitor folks collect and maintain tell us that southern California is in a drought.  What facts do you have exactly?  A good grape crop in Napa valley?  Give us a fooking break.


Gigabytes of data?

A small mind you have, crick. The data available to collect is infinite.

Hence the smallness of your idea.


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2014)

Again, the Drought Monitor folks have gigabytes of data that indicate a drought is in progress - rather a de facto determination given the nature of the data and the definition of the term "drought".  You have the spurious fact that portions of the California grape harvest have been good.  How, exactly, does that refute the precipitation data?


----------



## elektra (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.





Crick said:


> Again, the Drought Monitor folks have gigabytes of data that indicate a drought is in progress - rather a de facto determination given the nature of the data and the definition of the term "drought".  You have the spurious fact that portions of the California grape harvest have been good.  How, exactly, does that refute the precipitation data?


Portions? You are the one who addressed a tiny portion, Napa Valley. 

Either way, this is an above average year, I think only two years were comparable, last year and the year before, despite the propaganda of the drought monitor. 

above average grape crop, I bet they will not even be able to sell all those grapes, want to bet?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have precipitation data that disagrees with the state' drought maps?  That parts of the state have done well in years past growing grapes - the only "facts" I've seen come from you - is hardly sufficient justification to call the state's water data false.
> ...



Damn, you can not only not read english, you cannot read a simple graph. Dark brown is severe drought, light brown is moderate drought, and yellow abnormally dry. The whole of California was in drought situation in 2013. You are beyond stupid, Elektra.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 Nope drought is no water, abnormally dry isn't drought.  Sorry rabbit tricks are for kids!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2014)

Damn, JC, you are just as stupid as Elektra. Since when do you think that third graders get to define scientific terms?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn, JC, you are just as stupid as Elektra. Since when do you think that third graders get to define scientific terms?


Since you kindergarten kids keep romping around on this message board.


----------



## elektra (Sep 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I guess I ain't as stupid as you, that ain't my posts you are quoting.

Old crock reads another user's post, attributes it to me through confusion, and calls me stupid? 

Old crock is dumb


----------



## elektra (Sep 28, 2014)

Hey, Good News, another record year for grapes in California, dare I say we are not suffering. But hey, don't take my word for it, anybody can see if I tell the truth by going to whatever market you shop at, and see if you can get fat, juicy, grapes from California at about 2$ lb.

Grapes






*​**GRAPES*





Grapes maintained their standing as the No. 3 fruit in Fresh Trends this year, but in 2013 they share the spotlight with strawberries as the third most-popular fruit.

*Packer Stories*
*Sunlight packs grapes in Halloween-themed bags*

*09/25/2014*

Sunlight International is packing grapes in Halloween-themed bags for the holiday.

*United FreshFacts report shows growth in value-added*

*09/24/2014*

Double-digit increases in value-added produce sales at U.S. retail stores highlight a new report on second quarter fresh produce performance.


*Columbine Vineyards opens sales office*

*09/19/2014*

Columbine Vineyards has opened its new sales office — The Exchange at Columbine Vineyards — in Delano, Calif.

*Mexican grape producers plan symposium*

*09/18/2014*

AALPUM, Mexico’s grape producers group, plans its Second International Grapevine Symposium for Feb. 5-6 in Hermosillo, Mexico.

*Wisconsin weather reduces grape quantity, not quality*

*09/16/2014*

Wild weather patterns in Wisconsin have affected the grape crop there this year. A long, cold winter, followed by an unseasonably wet summer has reduced crop production statewide.

*More Packer Stories for Grapes*




*Market Scope - Grapes — F.o.b.s as of Sept. 22*
*2014-09-21*

KERN DISTRICT, CALIF. — Shipments (653-620-600) — Movement expected to remain about the same. Trading moderate. Prices higher. 19-pound containers bagged thompson seedless large $14.95-16.95; crimson seedless large $16.95-18.95, medium $14.95-16.95; red globe large mostly $17.95-18.95; autumn king extra-large mostly $20.95-22.95, large mostly $18.95-20.95, medium $16.95-18.95; autumn royal large mostly $18.95; scarlet royal large mostly $18.95, medium mostly $16.95; extra services included.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DISTRICT, CALIF. — Shipments (159-139-166) — Movement expected to remain about the same. Trading moderate. Prices higher. 19-pound containers bagged. Thompson seedless large mostly $16.95; crimson seedless large $16.95-17.95, medium $14.95-15.95; red globe large mostly $16.95, medium mostly $14.95; autumn king large mostly $16.95, medium $14.95-15.95; scarlet royal large mostly $17.95-18.95, medium mostly $16.95; extra services included.


----------



## cfv007 (Jul 18, 2015)

Does NO ONE see the ten's of thousands of new homes, apartment complexes, office suites, and shopping centers being constructed in Southern California?? I'm sure there is plenty of construction going on statewide, but I live in Southern California and new construction is rampant! Explain to me how building even ONE NEW HOME makes ANY sense if we are truly experiencing a major drought? 
Here's some very simple math...
More dwellings = MORE PEOPLE = MORE WATER CONSUMPTION. 

HELLO?  Stop the uncontrolled growth!! At LEAST till we have the water, electricity, and infrastructure to support it!!   

Take a freaking breather and STOP NEW CONSTRUCTION!!

Until we have the resources QUIT MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE!! 

DUH!


----------



## KissMy (Jul 18, 2015)

USDA California Grape Crush Report 2014: The 2014 crush totaled 4,142,934 tons, down 12 percent from 2013 crush of 4,700,377 tons. Red wine varieties accounted for the largest share of all grapes crushed, at 2,138,294 tons, down 12 percent from 2013. The 2014 white wine variety crush totaled 1,754,503 tons, down 4 percent from 2013. Tons crushed of raisin type varieties totaled 155,514, down 53 percent from 2013, and tons crushed of table type varieties totaled 94,623, down 25 percent from 2013.


----------

