California not suffering, drought?

[elektra]

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

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]

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

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

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

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.

You have no idea what cherry picking is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, the grape harvest for this year is

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

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.

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.

(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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Reality.

 

[elektra]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

Oregon climate Zone 9 occupies the southeast corner of the state, and is limited to the confines of Malheur County, the state's second largest county. This is a region of high desert, mountain ranges, plateaus, and river valleys, with elevations ranging from slightly above 2,000 feet to nearly 8,000 feet above sea level. Less than 30,000 people occupy the nearly 10,000 square miles, which comprise Malheur County. Most reside in the Ontario - Nyssa - Vale areas near the northeast border. More than 90 percent of the county is range land, two-thirds of which is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

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]

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]

2011:

2014

Yes, reality.

 

[elektra]

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]

2011:

2014

Yes, reality.

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]

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.

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

 

[ShackledNation]

2011:

2014

Yes, reality.

No, that is a cut/paste from google

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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

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