Daily PM2.5 peaked at 66 µg/m³ near Portland across
1 covered metro home to 2.5 million people.
Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the
average affected resident ≈ 2.7 cigarettes.
Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of
≈ 6.9 million cigarettes.
An awareness illustration of outdoor exposure at 22 µg/m³
per cigarette (Berkeley Earth), counting only the event's ranked days; not a
medical dose.
Why we think this happened
The basis for “Temperature inversion”
The exact-date NWS Portland discussion said the subsidence inversion over the Willamette Valley would not break, the surface inversion would remain, and the valleys would stay capped under an Air Stagnation Advisory. This supports an inversion accumulation mechanism for the Portland metro.
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
National Weather Service Portland via Iowa Environmental Mesonet · Dec 1, 2002hypothesis
On the event date, NWS Portland said the Willamette Valley's subsidence and surface inversions would persist, valleys would remain capped, and an Air Stagnation Advisory was in effect.
Inference, not direct attribution
: This inference is recorded in the catalog methodology.
A cause is more convincing when the record connects three things: something happened,
the air mass moved toward the region, and local instruments responded. Here is how much
of that chain is documented for this event.
. This inference is recorded in the catalog methodology.
Inferred
2
Air-mass movement
The transport path has not been reconstructed
The retained record does not yet show how air traveled from the proposed source to
these metros. A trajectory replay or dated plume analysis belongs here.
Research gap
3
Local response
66 µg/m³ near Portland
EPA monitors recorded the event across 1 metro.
The peak daily concentration is roughly 3.0 cigarette-equivalents at the outdoor daily rate.
Before, during, and after the episode: nearby pollutant monitors and surface-weather
stations show what changed. This context tests the “Temperature inversion” explanation; it does
not assign the cause by itself.
Observed context · not attribution
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Monitor comparison window 2002-11-28 to 2002-12-04 · PM2.5 target: Hillsboro 15th and Oak (HFO)
2 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse44.5 µg/m³
152% above nearby days
Air movement1.69 kt
64% lower than surrounding days
Carbon monoxide1.79 ppm
104% higher than surrounding days
Pollution fingerprint
Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.544.5 µg/m³
152% higher than surrounding days
Before17.6 µg/m³ Event44.5 µg/m³ After7.30 µg/m³
Carbon monoxide1.79 ppm
104% higher than surrounding days
Before0.750 ppm Event1.79 ppm After0.965 ppm
Atmospheric conditions
Nearby EPA weather observations
Humidity81.4 %
23% higher than surrounding days
Pressure1017 Millibars
About the same as surrounding days
Temperature39.5 °F
About the same as surrounding days
Wind1.69 kt
64% lower than surrounding days
Source: U.S. EPA AirData daily observations and, where available, nearby ASOS/AWOS
surface observations. Values are descriptive medians over the retained monitor set;
missing measurements remain missing. Transport and source evidence remain separate
layers because this instrument pattern does not assign a cause by itself.
Measured daily PM2.5 at EPA monitors, as cigarette-equivalents
EPA monitors sit in metro areas, so the colour clusters there. Land between and beyond
them is unmeasured, not clean: this map shows where IAQng has readings, not the extent
of the smoke.
—
Episode peak
--cigarettes
The smoke map's scale, replayed over this event: the surface interpolates between
covered metros' daily records, framed to the affected region. Hover for a reading,
click a metro to pin it to the card. Days a monitor did not report draw nothing.
Select a metro on the map to see nearby cameras. Where an operator archive reaches
the event, drag the divider to compare two moments, adjust either date and time, or
play the available event-day frames. Camera imagery is visual context, not an
air-quality measurement or proof of smoke.
No useful public camera views are currently available within 80 km of this metro.
"Cigarettes, whole event" totals a metro's ranked event days at 22 µg/m³ per
cigarette: what a person outdoors there breathed across the event, as the
illustration. "All-time standing" is where this episode's days sit in each metro's
ranked record (worst-area measure, since 1999). Full local context is on each
metro's Air Records page.
Public evidence library
What supports this account
Each card states what a source supports—and what it does not. Official records, research, reporting, community observations, and transparent inferences remain visibly different kinds of evidence.
1 retained source
Official record
Northwest Oregon and Southwest Washington Area Forecast Discussion — December 1, 2002
National Weather Service Portland via Iowa Environmental Mesonet
On the event date, NWS Portland said the Willamette Valley's subsidence and surface inversions would persist, valleys would remain capped, and an Air Stagnation Advisory was in effect.
What it supports
This source supports a possible mechanism or occurrence; it does not establish the cause by itself.
Limit
This establishes persistent atmospheric trapping but does not identify the PM2.5 source mixture.
What remains uncertain
The NWS evidence supports the accumulation mechanism but does not identify the primary and secondary particle sources.
Status and provenance
PossibleThis is a transparent hypothesis supported by limited evidence or an explicit inference, not a definitive attribution.
This episode was grouped from the monitor record by the catalog pipeline and given
its cause from the evidence listed above. It has not been individually reviewed and
signed off, so its boundaries, cause, and name may change as evidence accumulates.
Grouping policy common_sense_root_cause_grouping.v2. The cause label reflects the
assembled evidence above, not an IAQng detection formula. If it is wrong,
tell us.