Global Weather Phenomenon-Natural/Technological Disasters-Space Events-Epidemic/Biological Hazards-
Nuclear Events :
News Affiliate of Family Survival Protocol.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 11:23 AM -
A “larger than normal” dust storm billowed through the Australian
outback town of Boulia Tuesday, creating an otherworldly spectacle.
Local
photographers jumped at the opportunity to capture the Martian-like
moment, where visibility was reportedly limited to just a few metres.
A major dust storm swept over the Queensland town of Boulia on Tuesday. Photo: Kerry Hutchins/Instagram
Photographers have captured incredible images of a major dust storm which hit central west Queensland on Tuesday.
The
outback town of Boulia, located about 500 kilometres west of Longreach,
bore the brunt of the storm which blanketed everything in its path in
red dust.
Ann Britton was on her cattle station when she saw the storm approaching.
"The winds were very strong and the dust blew for a few hours. If you were driving through it you had to stop," she said.
Ms Britton, a local photographer, said visibility was down to a few metres.
Global
warming may be responsible for AMOC's slowdown but natural forces may
also be at work, NASA said. AMOC is part of the complex circulation of
currents that help take the warmer Gulf Stream water and move it through
the basin.
Data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites correspond with similar findings that were not satellite-based. The GRACE findings were published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
An AMOC slowdown would impact other currents throughout the Atlantic.
The
new Old World Drought Atlas of droughts and wet weather in the Old
World gives climate scientists greater perspective on current weather
phenomenon.
Climate
scientists have produced an atlas reconstructing weather conditions
over the last millennium, in an effort to understand more about current
changes to the weather.
They hope their Old World Drought Atlas (OWDA) will allow for a greater understanding of climate forecasts.
"Climate
model projections suggest widespread drying in the Mediterranean Basin
and wetting in Fennoscandia in the coming decades largely as a
consequence of greenhouse gas forcing of climate," write the scientists
in their paper, published in Science Advances on Friday.
The
researchers used archaeological tree ring data to measure more than a
thousand years of European weather. They compared their findings
to historical accounts of severe droughts, wet weather events or other
catastrophes, and found that the tree ring data corresponds with many
documented incidents of extreme weather.
Oh,
and look at 1741, and the terrible drought. The trees are showing the
results of the cold and dry spell that began in 1739. This is the year
of the great Irish famine, and it killed millions as well. Here’s what
the paper has to say about the 1741 map:
The Irish famine of
1740–1741: This event has been attributed to unusually low winter and
spring temperatures in 1740, resulting in crop failures and subsequent
famine (17).
The OWDA is not well suited for determining temperature anomalies
because it primarily reflects warm season
hydroclimate. However, climate
field reconstructions of seasonal precipitation from documentary and
early instrumental data (18)
indicate that spring-summer rainfall over Ireland in 1741 was well
below normal relative to the modern average. Drought over Ireland may
therefore have contributed to the severity of the famine through its
negative impact on food production in 1741. The OWDA map of 1741
indicates severe drought over Ireland that also extended over England
and Wales, consistent with previously reported record rainfall deficits.
Is
it just me, or does this give you the willies? It’s like looking at
that big high pressure over the NW Atlantic on the night of April
14,1912. The Titanic survivors reported the ocean as still as a
mill-pond, and I have the surface weather map that proves they were
right. That’s how I feel about these rainfall charts. That horrible
famine was seven long centuries ago, but the trees still remember, and
they tell us that those old faded pieces of parchment were not
exaggerating. It was real, and it left millions dead, and millions more
in grief.
This Old World Drought Atlas will have great
benefits in climate research, and historians will find them invaluable
as well, but they also give us a warning. Our limited 100 years or so of
written weather records can be deceiving. We think we know what a bad
crop year is, and how long a bad drought can last, but our lifetimes are
rather short, and perhaps we are fools. Knowing this makes fooling with
our planet’s temperature control even more egregious.
The paper is open access and you can read it all HERE.
Strange things are happening in both outer and inner space
scientists
are discovering that the Solar System, the sun, and life itself are
mutating in totally unprecedented ways. They are reporting changes that
are being recorded in space that have never been seen before
Studies show that the Sun and the planets themselves are physically changing at
an accelerated pace. Most notably, they are undergoing major changesin their atmospheres.
Let's
begin with the Sun. The Sun is the center of our Solar System, and all
life that is on this Earth came from the Sun. If there were no Sun, we
would not be alive. This is simply scientific fact. And so any changes
that occur in or on the Sun will eventually affect every person alive.
We
know that the Sun's magnetic field has changed in the last 100 years.
There's a study by Dr. Mike Lockwood from Rutherford Appleton National
Laboratories, in California. Dr. Lockwood has been investigating the
Sun, and reports that since 1901 the overall magnetic field of the Sun
has become stronger by 130 percent.
Moon: Earth's moon is growing
an atmosphere . Around the moon, there is this 6,000- kilometre- deep
layer of Natrium that wasn't there before. http://sirius.bu.edu/moontail/
Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field.
Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 40 years.
Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps.
Jupiter:
Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds.(Huge
belts in the giant planet's atmosphere have changed color, radiation
hotspots have faded and flared up again, and cloud levels have thickened
and dissolved, all while space rocks have been hurtling into it the gas
giant.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/...
Saturn:
Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~30 years,
accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator.
Uranus: Big changes in brightness, increased global cloud activity (This planet used to have a very calm atmosphere. )
Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/1998/triton
Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes. Earth's Axis has changed.
On
Earth, the overall volcanic activity increased 500 percent from 1875 to
1975, while the earthquake activity has increased by 400 percent since
1973. Dr. Dmitriev says that comparing the years 1963 to 1993, the
overall number of natural disasters — hurricanes, typhoons, mud slides,
tidal waves, etc. — has increased by 410 percent.
The Earth's
magnetic field has been decreasing. This decrease actually began 2000
years ago, but the rate of decrease suddenly became much more rapid 500
years ago. Now, in the last 20 years or so, the magnetic field has
become erratic.http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/r...
Music credit: YouTube Audio Library
1) It's Coming - Josh Kirsch & Media Right Productions
2) The Island - Soundtrack - My Name is Linkoln on Tyros4
You Tube channel "Telmo Gama" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Pf_m...
We
are now in the throws of the Earth's 6th Mass Extinction, and humans
will soon be on the endagered list; according to Stanford University,
Oxford, and others. Many studies are being done, and while they admit
that this extinction event is not a natural one, as the past 5
extinctions have been, (they say this one is caused by human beings) not
one of the studies covers, or at least admits the true, final cause...
man-made radiation.
Since
Fukushima, much interest has developed in the application of checking
food and water for possible radiation contamination. Here are your
options: Rely on government agencies, such as the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US,
or Procure the same equipment used by those agencies and conduct
your own tests. These include specialized devices like Multi-Channel
Analyzers for Gamma Spectrometry, etc. which are quite thorough and able
to detect very low levels of contaminants, along with which isotopes
are present. Or, acquire a personal radiation detector which, while
not as effective or thorough as the above alternatives, is readily
available to the lay person and easy to use. http://www.geigercounters.com/FoodCon...
Geoengineering the
planet's climate: even when applied on a massive scale, the most that
could be expected is a temperature drop of about 8%, new research shows.
Photograph: Nasa/REUTERS
Large-scale human engineering of the Earth's climate to prevent
catastrophic global warming would not only be ineffective but would have
severe unintended side effects and could not be safely stopped, a
comparison of five proposed methods has concluded.
Science academies around the world as well as some climate activists have called for more research into geoengineering techniques, such as reflecting sunlight from space, adding vast quantities of lime or iron filings to the oceans,
pumping deep cold nutrient-rich waters to the surface of oceans and
irrigating vast areas of the north African and Australian deserts to
grow millions of trees. Each method has been shown to potentially reduce
temperature on a planetary scale.
But researchers at the
Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany, modelled these five
potential methods and concluded that geoengineering could add chaos to
complex and not fully understood weather systems. Even when applied on a
massive scale, the most that could be expected, they say, is a
temperature drop of about 8%.
The potential side effects would be potentially disastrous, say the scientists, writing in Nature Communications.
Ocean upwelling, or the bringing up of deep cold waters, would cool
surface water temperatures and reduce sea ice melting, but would
unbalance the global heat budget, while adding iron filings or lime
would affect the oxygen levels in the oceans. Reflecting the sun's rays
into space would alter rainfall patterns and reforesting the deserts
could change wind patterns and could even reduce tree growth in other
regions.
In addition, say the scientists, two of the five
methods considered could not be safely stopped. "We find that, if solar
radiation management or ocean upwelling is discontinued then rapid
warming occurs. If the other methods are discontinued, less dramatic
changes occur. Essentially all of the CO2 that was taken up remains in
the ocean."
Geoengineering Ineffective Against Climate Change, Could Make Worse
By Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor | February 25, 2014 11:40am ET
A diagram of the geoengineering projects people have
proposed to combat climate change. The laws surrounding such projects
are still uncertain. Credit: Diagram by Kathleen Smith/LLNL
Current schemes to minimize the havoc caused by global warming by
purposefully manipulating Earth's climate are likely to either be
relatively useless or actually make things worse, researchers say in a
new study.
The dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels
in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is expected to cause
rising global sea levels, more-extreme weather and other disruptions to
regional and local climates. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, so as levels of the gas rise, the planet overall warms.
In addition to efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, some have
suggested artificially manipulating the world's climate in a last-ditch
effort to prevent catastrophic climate change. These strategies,
considered radical in some circles, are known as geoengineering or climate engineering.
Many scientists have investigated and questioned how effective
individual geoengineering methods could be. However, there have been few
attempts to compare and contrast the various methods, which range from
fertilizing the ocean so that marine organisms suck up excess carbon
dioxide to shooting aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect some of the
sun's incoming rays back into space. [8 Ways Global Warming is Already Changing the World]
Now, researchers using a 3D computer model of the Earth have tested the
potential benefits and drawbacks of five different geoengineering
technologies. Will it work?
The scientists found that even when several technologies were combined,
geoengineering would be unable to prevent average surface temperatures
from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)
above current temperatures by the year 2100. This is, the current limit
that international negotiations are focused on. They were unable to do
so even when each technology was deployed continuously and at scales as
large as currently deemed possible.
"The potential of most climate engineering methods, even when
optimistic deployment scenarios were assumed, were much lower than I had
expected," said study author Andreas Oschlies, an earth system modeler
at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany.
According to a new study due to be published in 2014, Geoengineering field research is not only allowed, it is encouraged.
The study was authored by Jesse Reynolds at Tilburg Law School in the
Netherlands. Reynolds researched the legal status of geoengineering
research by analyzing international documents and treaties.
Geo-engineering is the science of manipulating the climate for the
stated purpose of fighting mad made climate change. These include Solar
Radiation Management (SRM), the practice of spraying aerosols into the
sky in an attempt to deflect the Sun’s rays and combat climate change.
“The term “geoengineering”
describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and
deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce
temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these
technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their
effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven.
Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost,
environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications
of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed,
they are expected to have the potential to cause significant
transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering
technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address
the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide
(CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and
carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by
increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.
Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM
methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,
but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling
results compared to CDR methods.“
Reynolds’ study will be published in the Journal of Energy, Climate and the Environment
around the same time that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
presents its Fifth Assessment Report. The study continues the calls
for an international body to regulate the controversial weather
modification techniques.
Some believe the answer is international agreement for international
tests but low-risk domestic research should continue to assist in the
overall decision of what to do with geoengineering.
One of the many dangers of manipulating the weather are the loss of blue skies. According to a report by the New Scientist,
Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that
releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter
sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of
sunlight that hits the ground by 20% and make the sky appear more hazy.
Solar Geoengineering: Weighing Costs of Blocking the Sun’s Rays
With prominent scientists now calling for
experiments to test whether pumping sulfates into the atmosphere could
safely counteract global warming, critics worry that the world community
may be moving a step closer to deploying this controversial technology.
by nicola jones
In 1991, Mount
Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in one of the largest volcanic
blasts of the 20th century. It spat up to 20 million tons of sulfur into
the upper atmosphere, shielding the earth from the sun’s rays and
causing global temperatures to drop by nearly half a degree Celsius in a single year. That’s more than half of the amount the planet has warmed
Studies have shown that such a strategy would be powerful, feasible, fast-acting, and cheap.
due to climate change in 130 years.
Now some scientists are thinking about replicating Mount Pinatubo’s
dramatic cooling power by intentionally spewing sulfates into the
atmosphere to counteract global warming. Studies have shown that such a
strategy would be powerful, feasible, fast-acting, and cheap, capable in
principle of reversing all of the expected worst-case warming over the
next century or longer, all the while increasing plant productivity.
Harvard University physicist David Keith,
one of the world’s most vocal advocates of serious research into such a
scheme, calls it "a cheap tool that could green the world." In the face
of anticipated rapid climate change, Keith contends that the smart move
is to intensively study both the positive and negative effects of using
a small fleet of jets to inject
Arlan Naeg/AFP/Getty Images
The 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption lowered temperatures nearly half a degree Celsius.
sulfate aerosols high into the atmosphere to block a portion of the sun’s rays.
Yet even Keith acknowledges that there are serious concerns about solar
geoengineering, both in terms of the environment and politics. Growing
discussion about experimentation with solar radiation management has
touched off an emotional debate, with proponents saying the technique
may be needed to avert climate catastrophe and opponents warning that
deployment could lead to international conflicts and unintended
environmental consequences — and that experimentation would create a
slippery slope that would inevitably lead to deployment. University of
Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert has called the scheme "barking mad." Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki
has dismissed it as "insane." Protestors have stopped even harmless,
small-scale field experiments that aim to explore the idea. And Keith
has received a couple of death threats from the fringe of the
environmentalist community.
Clearly, there are good reasons for concern. Solar geoengineering would likely make the planet drier, potentially disrupting monsoons in places like India and creating drought in parts of the tropics.
The technique could help eat away the protective ozone shield of our
planet, and it would cause air pollution. It would also do nothing to
counteract the problem of ocean
Some worry that solar geoengineering would hand politicians an easy reason to avoid emissions reductions.
acidification, which occurs when the seas absorb high levels of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Some worry that solar geoengineering would hand politicians an easy
reason to avoid reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And if the impacts of
climate change worsen and nations cannot agree on what scheme to
deploy, or at what temperature the planet’s thermostat should be set,
then conflict or even war could result as countries unilaterally begin
programs to inject sulfates into the atmosphere. "My greatest concern is
societal disruption and conflict between countries," says Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
As Keith himself summarizes, "Solar geoengineering is an extraordinarily powerful tool. But it is also dangerous."
Studies have shown that solar radiation management could be
accomplished and that it would cool the planet. Last fall, Keith
published a book, A Case for Climate Engineering,
that lays out the practicalities of such a scheme. A fleet of ten
Gulfstream jets could be used to annually inject 25,000 tons of sulfur —
as finely dispersed sulfuric acid, for example — into the lower
stratosphere. That would be ramped up to a million tons of sulfur per
year by 2070, in order to counter about half of the world’s warming from
greenhouse gases. The idea is to combine such a scheme with emissions
cuts, and keep it running for about twice as long as it takes for CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere to level out.
Under Keith’s projections, a world that would have warmed 2 degrees C by
century’s end would instead warm 1 degree C. Keith says his "moderate,
temporary" plan would help to avoid many of the problems associated with
full-throttle solar geoengineering schemes that aim to counteract all
of the planet’s warming, while reducing the cost of adapting to rapid
climate change. He estimates this scheme would cost about $700 million
annually — less than 1 percent of what is currently spent on clean
energy development. If such relatively modest cost projections prove to
be accurate, some individual countries could deploy solar geoengineering
technologies without international agreement.
‘The thing that’s surprising is the degree to which it’s being taken more seriously,’ says one scientist.
The idea of solar geoengineering dates back at least to the 1970s;
researchers have toyed with a range of ideas, including deploying giant
mirrors to deflect solar energy back into space, or spraying salt water
into the air to make more reflective clouds. In recent years the notion
of spraying sulfates into the stratosphere has moved to the forefront.
"Back in 2000 we just thought of it as a ‘what if’ thought experiment,"
says atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira
of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who did some of the first
global climate modeling work on the concept. "In the last years, the
thing that’s surprising is the degree to which it’s being taken more
seriously in the policy world."
In 2010, the first major cost estimates of sulfate-spewing schemes
were produced. In 2012, China listed geoengineering among its earth
science research priorities. Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s summary statement for policymakers controversially mentioned geoengineering for the first time in the panel’s 25-year history. And the National Academy of Sciences is working on a geoengineering report, funded in part by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Solar geoengineering cannot precisely counteract global warming. Carbon
dioxide warms the planet fairly evenly, while sunshine is patchy:
There’s more in the daytime, in the summer, and closer to the equator.
Back in the 1990s, Caldeira was convinced that these differences would
make geoengineering ineffective. "So we did these simulations, and much
to our surprise it did a pretty good job," he says. The reason is that a
third factor has a bigger impact on climate than either CO2 or
sunlight: polar ice. If you cool the planet enough to keep that ice,
says Caldeira, then this dominates the climate response.
A view from the space
shuttle Atlantis of three layers of volcanic dust in the Earth's
atmosphere, following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the
Philippines. Photograph: ISS/NASA/Corbis
Reversing climate change
via huge artificial volcanic eruptions could bring severe droughts to
large regions of the tropics, according to new scientific research.
The controversial idea of geoengineering – deliberately changing the Earth's climate – is being seriously discussed as a last-ditch way of avoiding dangerous global warming if efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions fail.
But
the new work shows that a leading contender – pumping sulphate
particles into the stratosphere to block sunlight – could have
side-effects just as serious as the effects of warming itself.
Furthermore, the impacts would be different around the world, raising
the prospect of conflicts between nations that might benefit and those
suffering more damage.
"There are a lot of issues regarding
governance – who controls the thermostat – because the impacts of
geoengineering will not be uniform everywhere," said Dr Andrew
Charlton-Perez, at the University of Reading and a member of the
research team.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, is the first to convincingly model what happens to rainfall if sulphates were deployed on a huge scale.
While
the computer models showed that big temperature rises could be
completely avoided, it also showed cuts in rain of up to one-third in
South America, Asia and Africa. The consequent droughts would affect
billions of people and also fragile tropical rainforests that act as a
major store of carbon. "We would see changes happening so quickly that
there would be little time for people to adapt," said Charlton-Perez.
Another
member of the research team, Professor Ellie Highwood, said: "On the
evidence of this research, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering is not
providing world leaders with any easy answers to the problem of climate
change."
These videos contain religious based opinions that some may not agree with. I am posting the videos for the facts that are introduced in reference to foreign bodies that have been observed.
Whether you accept the religious commentary or not is completely a very personal option on your part. My main interest is the information being provided. Please do not challenge me on the religious aspect as this video was made by another person not by me. Please address any commentary or complaint to the originator of the video itself. I will not be drawn into an argument as to the validity of the religious commentaries being made.
A dead cow is lifted from flooding in the aftermath of winter storm Atlas in South Dakota. Photograph: Lacey Weiss
If you aren't in the ag world, you most likely haven't heard about the devastating loss that ranchers in western South Dakota are struggling with after being hit by winter storm Atlas.
For
some reason the news stations aren't covering this story. I don't
understand why they wouldn't. This story has heartbreak, tragedy and
even a convenient tie into the current government shutdown. Isn't that what the news is all about these days?
But
the news isn't covering this story. Instead, it is spreading around on
social media, and bloggers are writing from their ranches in South
Dakota. Bloggers are trying to explain how the horrible happened. And
now I am going to join them to tell you the part of the story that I
know, and I am going to ask you to help these people, because if you are
here reading this, I know you give a crap about these people.
Last
weekend western South Dakota and parts of the surrounding states got
their butts handed to them by Mother Nature. A blizzard isn't unusual in
South Dakota, the cattle are tough and can handle some snow. They have
for hundreds of years.
Unlike on our dairy farm in Wisconsin, beef
cattle don't live in climate controlled barns. Beef cows and calves
spend the majority of their lives out on pasture. They graze the grass
in the spring, summer and fall and eat baled hay in the winter.
In
winter these cows and calves grow fuzzy jackets that keep them warm and
protect them from the snow and cold. The cows and calves live in
special pastures in the winter. These pastures are smaller and closer to
the ranch, and they have windbreaks for the cows to hide behind. They
have worked for cows for hundred of years.
So what's the big deal about this blizzard?
Livestock farmers in South Dakota
are suffering after a record early blizzard that dumped four feet of
snow and killed tens of thousands of cattle. The government shutdown has
left ranchers unable to go to the government for help. Manuel Bojorquez
reports.
Shutdown worsens historic blizzard that killed tens of thousands of South Dakota cattle
KNBN-TV
Rapid
City and many other parts of South Dakota recorded record snowfall
totals for the entire month of October in just three days over the
weekend.
By M. Alex Johnson, Staff Writer, NBC News
An
unusually early and enormous snowstorm over the weekend caught South
Dakota ranchers and farmers unprepared, killing tens of thousands of
cattle and ravaging the state's $7 billion industry — an industry left
without assistance because of the federal government shutdown.
As
many as 75,000 cattle have perished since the storm slammed the western
part of the state Thursday through Saturday with snowfall that set
records for the entire month of October in just three days, state and
industry officials said.
Across the state, snow totals averaged 30 inches, with some isolated areas recording almost 5 feet, The Weather Channel reported.
The
South Dakota Stock Growers Association estimated that 15 percent to 20
percent of all cattle were killed in some parts of the state. Some
ranchers reported that they lost half or more of their herds.
The
storm was accompanied by hurricane-force wind gusts, especially Friday
night, which drove some herds seeking shelter miles from their ranches. A
trail of carcasses left a gruesome sight, said Martha Wierzbicki,
emergency management director for Butte County, in the northwestern
corner of the state.
Parts
of South Dakota are in cleanup mode after a strong winter storm pounded
some areas. Kirsten Swanson of NBC station KNBN reports.
"They're in the fence line, laying alongside the roads," Wierzbicki told The Rapid City Journal. "It's really sickening."
Ranchers
have no one to ask for help or reimbursement. That's because Congress
has yet to pass a new farm bill, which subsidizes agricultural
producers.
A major dust storm swept over the Queensland town of Boulia on Tuesday. Photo: Kerry Hutchins/Instagram
