← Air events

Temperature inversion Likely

2004-01-24 Provo-Orem, UT and Salt Lake City, UT temperature-inversion pollution episode

January 24, 2004

Daily PM2.5 peaked at 82 µg/m³ near Provo across 2 covered metros home to 2.1 million people. 1 metro placed a top-ten day in their record.

Counting the extra PM2.5 above each metro's typical day, this event handed the average affected resident ≈ 3.3 cigarettes. Across everyone living in the affected metros, that is the collective equivalent of ≈ 6.8 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”

Contemporaneous reporting describes the supplied Wasatch Front period as an inversion-driven air pollution episode.

Likely Applicable reporting or a supported inference makes this the best current causal explanation.

BYU NewsNet · Jan 23, 2004 corroborates

January 23, 2004 Daily Universe

Contemporaneous local coverage described an inversion trapping pollution along the Wasatch Front during the supplied period.

See every retained source and limitation ↓

Sequence: Provo (Jan 24) → Salt Lake City (Jan 24)

Evidence path

From source to city

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.

Open the evidence ledger ↓
  1. 1

    Source or mechanism

    Temperature inversion

    Contemporaneous local coverage described an inversion trapping pollution along the Wasatch Front during the supplied period.

    View supporting source ↗
    Documented
  2. 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. 3

    Local response

    82 µg/m³ near Provo

    EPA monitors recorded the event across 2 metros. The peak daily concentration is roughly 3.7 cigarette-equivalents at the outdoor daily rate.

    Inspect the pollutant and weather signals ↓
    Documented

Event autopsy

What the instruments saw

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

Provo-Orem, UT

Monitor comparison window 2004-01-21 to 2004-01-27 · PM2.5 target: Lindon

3 pollutant signals
Fine-particle pulse 82 µg/m³

61% above nearby days

PM10 111 µg/m³

76% higher than surrounding days

Pollution fingerprint

Metro-wide median of reporting monitors
PM2.5 82 µg/m³

61% higher than surrounding days

Before58.5 µg/m³ Event82 µg/m³ After12.3 µg/m³
4 monitors · 24 HOUR
PM10 111 µg/m³

76% higher than surrounding days

Before69 µg/m³ Event111 µg/m³ After13.5 µg/m³
2 monitors · 24 HOUR
Carbon monoxide 1.50 ppm

57% higher than surrounding days

Before0.938 ppm Event1.50 ppm After0.956 ppm
2 monitors · 1 HOUR

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.

Views from the selected metro

Camera views near

Browse the camera map →

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.

Affected metros

MetroPeak PM2.5Cigarettes, whole eventPeak dayAll-time standing
Provo-Orem, UT 82 µg/m³ 3.7 Jan 24, 2004 #11 of its top days
Salt Lake City, UT 79.6 µg/m³ 3.6 Jan 24, 2004 #10 of its top days

"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

News report

January 23, 2004 Daily Universe

BYU NewsNet

Contemporaneous local coverage described an inversion trapping pollution along the Wasatch Front during the supplied period.

What it supports

A retained source supports the attributed cause for the stated place and dates.

Limit

The report identifies the accumulation mechanism rather than apportioning individual emissions.

What remains uncertain

Status and provenance

Likely Applicable reporting or a supported inference makes this the best current causal explanation.

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.