What Month Has The Most Smoke In The Air?

[Priceless]

[...]

Sorry for not having more recent material on this, but I'm sure

you will find it by yourself. Just Google around a little bit.

On the Chiang Mai page of Wikipedia you will find for instance an

interesting chapter on air pollution in Chiang Mai town and province:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Mai

[...]

I don't know whether what is said about air pollution in Chiang Mai has ever been true, or whether it has always been a myth. However, you can see from my previous post that Chiang Mai has for the last three years had among the lowest pollution levels in the upper North. The Chiang Mai levels have also been on a strongly downward trend for the last 7½ years:

/ Priceless

Edited October 25, 2011 by Priceless

[changraider]

Well I'm glad we can all agree that March, possibly into April is likely to be the worst time for Chivo's visit :-)

And thanks to you guys for the graphic, it does indeed seem to show a strong correlation between poor air quality and border provinces. It also raises a few questions: for example why does Nan show a low correlation despite its comparatively long border with Laos? The graphic is also a very high level overview of course, and without knowing where the air samples were taken it's use as a predictive tool is limited: for example the air quality in Chiang Mai city (or any other city in the region) is obviously going to be poorer than most mountain villages almost any time of the year.

[Priceless]

Well I'm glad we can all agree that March, possibly into April is likely to be the worst time for Chivo's visit :-)

And thanks to you guys for the graphic, it does indeed seem to show a strong correlation between poor air quality and border provinces. It also raises a few questions: for example why does Nan show a low correlation despite its comparatively long border with Laos? The graphic is also a very high level overview of course, and without knowing where the air samples were taken it's use as a predictive tool is limited: for example the air quality in Chiang Mai city (or any other city in the region) is obviously going to be poorer than most mountain villages almost any time of the year.

I think that you are possibly confusing the lines for Nan and Phrae (correct me if I am wrong). This could very easily happen since the graph is rather 'crowded', for which I apologize.

The oddity about Phrae goes back to 2010, when their values for March and April were extremely low (note that Phrae only has data for two years). My suspicion is that their measuring station/equipment had teething problems and that Phrae will fall into line with the rest in the coming years. Since you use the word 'correlation', I computed the correlation coefficient between Nan and Chiang Mai and it turned out to be 0.99, i.e. an extremely strong correlation. The correlation between Phrae and Chiang Mai on the other hand is 0.84, i.e. significantly lower.

I fully agree with you about the high level overview, but that's unfortunately all the Pollution Control Department supplies data for. You can generally assume that their measurements are done in Amphur Muang of each province, though outside of city/town centres.

/ Priceless

[Limbo]

In fact the main source of the really bad pollution is not local, but mostly large scale fires in Burma and Laos. Anyway, here's a more up to date issue of the graph that 'Limbo' posted:

As you can see Chiang Rai has been the second most polluted place 2009-2011, after Mae Hong Son. The reason is of course what I mentioned above, that most of it comes from across the border.

To answer the OP's question, the most polluted time is obviously March.

/ Priceless

Thanks 'Priceless" for the uppdate! Great that you found it!

This year was a surprise. I had my bags packed already, plans and

contacts made, postponed, postponed and ... finally didn't leave at all 555!

I got the Rayong area or Hua Hin in mind, yes, simple thinking: sea and air.

But after doing some long distance bicycle tours in Isarn this year (including

a lot of pleasant surprises) I soon will have to do some research about the

climatological circumstances there around that time.

Maybe I might survive the month March there as well, without having to battle

with jellyfish inbetween my toes.

Limbo

PS: in the cheapest (hallo, hallo, attention please!) pharmacy of MaeSai I finally

found the good old 'Systral' made by a Thai company nowadays, formerly Bayer.

It must be almost a quarter of a century ago (help!) that I felt that it saved

my live in Hua Hin after an encounter with a monstrous jellyfish.

I bought it out of nostalgia almost, but I enjoy to neutralize the effects of

mosquito bites with a big smile and simultaneously a little lick of this substance.

I actually think that chlorphenoxamine is less harmless than triamcilonone acid

in these cases, but that originates in my probably exaggerated fear of anything

that breathes cortizoides.

I leave it to more knowledgable members of this forum to decide if my point of

view is defensible, because it is certainly not based on expertise.

Thanks in advance!

[changraider]

Hi PL, Limbo

Well I can see we share an interest in stats, in fact my master’s thesis was in statistical analysis (albeit in insurance rather than meteorology) but I hope no-one on this forum holds that against me ;-) Yesterday I had a quick look at the graph when refuelling coffee on the highway – now I’ve had a better look at it.

So – what does the graph show ? – air pollution figures collected for each provincial capital at a single collection point (2 in the case of Chiang Mai) and averaged over 2 years 2009/2010 (except Phrae and Payao 2010 only). My observations below are based upon eyeballing the graph (ie not using a calculator to find exact values) alongside a map of the region. Some of my observations are presented in a devil’s advocacy sort of way, please don’t take them as a personal attack! I would like to include a lot more possible interpretations but space and time won’t permit.

What can we say for certain from this graph? That for each provincial capital air pollution is comparatively static from June to November when it starts trending upwards, peaking around the end of the first quarter. Also the variation in air quality for each city is significant, ranging from around 300 % (Phrae) to 600% (Mae Hong Song). Also that the pollution values are pretty similar for all cities in the low months, but vary substantially in the high months.

I’d say that almost any other interpretation of this graph is open to vigorous challenges ;-)

Can we say from this that Chiang Mai city is less polluted than Chiang Rai city – actually no we can’t – we can say that Chiang Rai experiences a much greater swing in the high season than Chiang Mai . It all depends on the location of the air sampler – I’ve lived at Thapae and Nimmanhaemin, and I haven’t found anywhere more polluted in the entire region ! – ok ok that’s anecdotal not statistical. Some locations in Chang Rai city will undoubtedly be more polluted than Chiang Mai city, and vice versa.

Can we say that in general that the peak pollution is caused by neighbouring countries – actually no – Lampang is smack bang in the middle of Northern Thailand yet records the 3rd highest peak values (and incidentally records the highest pollution levels for around 5 months of the year). True, Chiang Rai’s and Mae Hong Song’s peak values indicate a possible effect from Burma, but Nan’s values would suggest no impact from Laos.

Some other questions which this graph cannot provide any interpretation for: is a microgramme of rice stubble pollution more or less toxic than a microgramme of vehicle exhaust pollution? What is the difference between the city and the country (no data for the latter unfortunately).

Now I’ve got to get on that polluting highway - have a good day!

[skybluestu]

It was pretty good, still a bit of roadworks going on but forget where exactly, maybe a few kms before Mae Suai.

From my limited time here I'd say it comes and goes from around October onwards, but never too bad, then starts to increase around February with March & April often being horrendous. I rode down to CM and back today and noticed some burning had started already as I was passing through Wiang Papao

Hi Stu,

How's the road looking down to Chiang Mai? I'll be back in about a week and need to have some two wheeled fun

[chiang mai]

Lampang is home to a very dirty coal fed generating plant hence the high levels of pollution there.

[Priceless]

Hi PL, Limbo

Well I can see we share an interest in stats, in fact my master’s thesis was in statistical analysis (albeit in insurance rather than meteorology) but I hope no-one on this forum holds that against me ;-) Yesterday I had a quick look at the graph when refuelling coffee on the highway – now I’ve had a better look at it.

So – what does the graph show ? – air pollution figures collected for each provincial capital at a single collection point (2 in the case of Chiang Mai) and averaged over 2 years 2009/2010 (except Phrae and Payao 2010 only). My observations below are based upon eyeballing the graph (ie not using a calculator to find exact values) alongside a map of the region. Some of my observations are presented in a devil’s advocacy sort of way, please don’t take them as a personal attack! I would like to include a lot more possible interpretations but space and time won’t permit.

What can we say for certain from this graph? That for each provincial capital air pollution is comparatively static from June to November when it starts trending upwards, peaking around the end of the first quarter. Also the variation in air quality for each city is significant, ranging from around 300 % (Phrae) to 600% (Mae Hong Song). Also that the pollution values are pretty similar for all cities in the low months, but vary substantially in the high months.

I’d say that almost any other interpretation of this graph is open to vigorous challenges ;-)

Can we say from this that Chiang Mai city is less polluted than Chiang Rai city – actually no we can’t – we can say that Chiang Rai experiences a much greater swing in the high season than Chiang Mai . It all depends on the location of the air sampler – I’ve lived at Thapae and Nimmanhaemin, and I haven’t found anywhere more polluted in the entire region ! – ok ok that’s anecdotal not statistical. Some locations in Chang Rai city will undoubtedly be more polluted than Chiang Mai city, and vice versa.

Can we say that in general that the peak pollution is caused by neighbouring countries – actually no – Lampang is smack bang in the middle of Northern Thailand yet records the 3rd highest peak values (and incidentally records the highest pollution levels for around 5 months of the year). True, Chiang Rai’s and Mae Hong Song’s peak values indicate a possible effect from Burma, but Nan’s values would suggest no impact from Laos.

Some other questions which this graph cannot provide any interpretation for: is a microgramme of rice stubble pollution more or less toxic than a microgramme of vehicle exhaust pollution? What is the difference between the city and the country (no data for the latter unfortunately).

Now I’ve got to get on that polluting highway - have a good day!

WARNING! Long and boring post!

Hi Changraider,

My master's thesis was not in statistical analysis (it was in Management of Information Systems). However, I have used different statistical methods for most of my professional life. This doesn't mean very much in this case, though, since I don't use anything more advanced than 'average' (i.e. arithmetic mean) and 'trend' (i.e. linear regression).

Firstly, I am surprised that you don't stress the most obvious weakness of the graph more explicitly, that is that it is based on just slightly less than three years of data (2009, 2010 and ten months of 2011). This in itself means that there is quite a large margin of error. You do however point out another major weakness, that there is only one measuring point behind each series. I do wish that more data were available but, alas, they're not. In fact, until 2009 there were only three measuring points in all of northern Thailand for which the PCD published data (Chiang Mai, Uparaj and Lampang). I have decided to do the best that I can with the data available, rather than sit and wait for more data (it might be a long wait).

Secondly, you are quite right in pointing out that it is the height (and to an extent width) of the peak pollution that distinguishes between the different parts of northern Thailand. Actually, if it weren't for the peak it would not be very interesting to study this, since the North is among the least polluted areas of Thailand for the rest of the year.

To help in your analysis, I'll give you the aggregate numbers for the three years:

As you can see from the table, the average pollution level in Chiang Rai is about 20% higher than for Chiang Mai. You can also see that outside of the peak months the levels are pretty much equal. It is also worth noting that the number of 'bad days' (i.e. with PM10 >120 µg/m³) is about twice as high in Chiang Rai as in Chiang Mai (7.2% vs 3.5%). Taking this into consideration I maintain that, based on the available data, Chiang Rai has been more polluted than Chiang Mai over the last three years (at the measuring stations).

As for (a large proportion of) the pollution coming from neighbouring countries, this still an unproven (though highly likely) hypothesis of mine. I do however have a problem explaining the comparatively low numbers for Nan and am eagerly awaiting more data in the coming years (note the somewhat sparse data for Nan). Note also that Payao seems to support my hypothesis. Lampang is a different story altogether: They have their own pollution sources in the form of the Mae Moh power plant and its supporting lignite mines. As you might be aware, lignite fired power stations is one of the most polluting activities known to man.

It is also worth pointing out that of the three years (two in the case of Payao and Phrae) included in the graph and the table, one (2011) has had extremely low levels of pollution in the whole area, probably mostly due to a lot of unseasonal rainfall. This makes conclusions based on this material even shakier than they would otherwise have been.

You mention that you have 'lived at Thapae and Nimmanhaemin', unfortunately without mentioning when (please consider the downward trend shown in my earlier post). If I may interpret 'Thapae' as reasonably close to Thapae Gate, it is worth pointing out that the 'Uparaj' measuring station is located only about 500 metres from the gate.

There are of course many many questions that a couple of graphs and a table cannot answer. As e.g. the difference in 'toxicity' between rice stubble and vehicle exhaust pollution, this is of course way beyond the scope of what I am doing (and beyond my qualifications). It is however worth noting that the differences between 'Uparaj' which is right in the middle of the city and 'Chiang Mai' which is at the provincial office on the way to Mae Rim, i.e. a lot more 'rural', are quite small in comparison to the seasonal variations.

To finish off, thank you for taking the time to post a thoughtful discussion. I am always looking for (and seldom find) objective discussion about this subject, since it interests me and has given me occasion for both reading and thinking over the last 4-5 years.

/ Priceless

PS I didn't see the previous post by 'chiang mai' before my posting.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Priceless

[changraider]

Hi PL, thanks for your thoughtful reply. If I'm right in thinking that there is single sampling point per city (3 in Chiang Mai), I would definitely consider the results of inter-city comparisons to be spurious. However, I'm happy if others believe that a single sampling point can be representative of the air quality across an entire city (which it would need to be for inter-city comparisons to be valid).

I'd be delighted to continue this over a beer if we ever by chance found ourselves in the same bar - statistically about as likely as 2 mosquitoes colliding in Wembley stadium :-) but for the time being I`ve got to get on with the pressing business of harvesting that darned rice! All the best.

[Priceless]

Hi PL, thanks for your thoughtful reply. If I'm right in thinking that there is single sampling point per city (3 in Chiang Mai), I would definitely consider the results of inter-city comparisons to be spurious. However, I'm happy if others believe that a single sampling point can be representative of the air quality across an entire city (which it would need to be for inter-city comparisons to be valid).

I'd be delighted to continue this over a beer if we ever by chance found ourselves in the same bar - statistically about as likely as 2 mosquitoes colliding in Wembley stadium :-) but for the time being I`ve got to get on with the pressing business of harvesting that darned rice! All the best.

Yes, you are right in your thinking, though there are only two sampling points in Chiang Mai. The one called 'Chiangmai' (in one word) is in effect a mobile station, i.e. you don't know where it is/was stationed at any given time. Most often it is at Phu Ping palace, which also puts it in a different air mass to 'Chiang Mai' and 'Uparaj' (>3,000 ft higher up).

/ Priceless

[Limbo]

Nice discussion, wouldn't have thought about the possibility of it on

a forum where not so long ago a member publicly denied the importance

of education.

I am a sociologist (ph.d.cand.) and I have been corrected many times here

which I would have appreciated wouldn't it have been ...

Of course I got my dose of methodology, but it was Thomas Kuhn who saved

my neck with his paradigma theory. I chose it for my final paper.

I think we will not have to discuss the statistics as we see the quality

of them, espexcially concerning their limitations.

Limbo

Let the barking start ...

[chiang mai]

Am I alone in finding it more than slightly odd that three successive posters find the need to describe their second degrees in the middle of a discussion about air quality in northern Thailand? What are these three learned fellows trying to tell us I wonder, what messages are they sending, is there a suggestion here that they might know more than other mere mortals about the pollution problems in northern Thailand or perhaps that they are better equipped to discuss the problem. I don't know.

I can't believe those things to be true since there's no obvious link between the subject matter and an advanced degree in Information Systems, Statistical Analysis (within the insurance industry) or Sociology and none of those "scholars" seem to have lived in the region any longer than the rest of us hence, they don't bring substantial first hand experience to the debate that isn't already present. I'm also troubled by the notion that relatively new posters find the need to declare their higher academic qualifications in order to try and fast track their credibility and standing and that sixty plus year old posters need to respond in kind, personally, at age 62 I'm strongly inclined to believe that my university work of forty years ago has precious little bearing on the knowledge I hold today and even less on my current approach to problem solving.

It's all very confusing and slightly troubling, but there you are, that's life.

[sceadugenga]

Nice discussion, wouldn't have thought about the possibility of it on

a forum where not so long ago a member publicly denied the importance

of education.

I am a sociologist (ph.d.cand.) and I have been corrected many times here

which I would have appreciated wouldn't it have been ...

Of course I got my dose of methodology, but it was Thomas Kuhn who saved

my neck with his paradigma theory. I chose it for my final paper.

I think we will not have to discuss the statistics as we see the quality

of them, espexcially concerning their limitations.

Limbo

Let the barking start ...

You're not trying to compare meteorology and sociology are you Limbo?

Everyone knows that sociology is akin to sorcery and voodoo while predicting the weather is an exact science!

Edited October 27, 2011 by sceadugenga

[villagefarang]

I too am impressed with the pomposity and self-aggrandizement that permeates the air in Chiang Rai. It doesn’t seem to follow any seasonal trend but does appear to drift in above thirty-thousand feet and deposit itself in our vicinity with some regularity.

Question it, or stir it, and no telling what form of atmospheric disturbance might be brought about. It is something one learns to live with, along with the other pollution and particulate matter we have been discussing. Personally, I maintain a smoke free zone, at least where I live.

Am I alone in finding it more than slightly odd that three successive posters find the need to describe their second degrees in the middle of a discussion about air quality in northern Thailand? What are these three learned fellows trying to tell us I wonder, what messages are they sending, is there a suggestion here that they might know more than other mere mortals about the pollution problems in northern Thailand or perhaps that they are better equipped to discuss the problem. I don't know.

I can't believe those things to be true since there's no obvious link between the subject matter and an advanced degree in Information Systems, Statistical Analysis (within the insurance industry) or Sociology and none of those "scholars" seem to have lived in the region any longer than the rest of us hence, they don't bring substantial first hand experience to the debate that isn't already present. I'm also troubled by the notion that relatively new posters find the need to declare their higher academic qualifications in order to try and fast track their credibility and standing and that sixty plus year old posters need to respond in kind, personally, at age 62 I'm strongly inclined to believe that my university work of forty years ago has precious little bearing on the knowledge I hold today and even less on my current approach to problem solving.

It's all very confusing and slightly troubling, but there you are, that's life.

[changraider]

Am I alone in finding it more than slightly odd that three successive posters find the need to describe their second degrees in the middle of a discussion about air quality in northern Thailand? What are these three learned fellows trying to tell us I wonder, what messages are they sending, is there a suggestion here that they might know more than other mere mortals about the pollution problems in northern Thailand or perhaps that they are better equipped to discuss the problem. I don't know.

I can't believe those things to be true since there's no obvious link between the subject matter and an advanced degree in Information Systems, Statistical Analysis (within the insurance industry) or Sociology and none of those "scholars" seem to have lived in the region any longer than the rest of us hence, they don't bring substantial first hand experience to the debate that isn't already present. I'm also troubled by the notion that relatively new posters find the need to declare their higher academic qualifications in order to try and fast track their credibility and standing and that sixty plus year old posters need to respond in kind, personally, at age 62 I'm strongly inclined to believe that my university work of forty years ago has precious little bearing on the knowledge I hold today and even less on my current approach to problem solving.

It's all very confusing and slightly troubling, but there you are, that's life.

CM you complained about my anecdotal evidence, and now you complain about statistical evidence. Some people just like to complain. Personally I'm delighted to learn that some TV members are educated and are able to discuss a given topic with insight. If others find that pompous I suggest they use a dictionary.

[villagefarang]

pompous |ˈpämpəs|

adjective

affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important: a pompous ass who pretends he knows everything.

[changraider]

pompous |ˈpämpəs|

adjective

affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important: a pompous ass who pretends he knows everything.

Exactly, and no contributor to this thread has suggested they know everything, though some have repeatedly gone off topic ;-)

[chiang mai]

Am I alone in finding it more than slightly odd that three successive posters find the need to describe their second degrees in the middle of a discussion about air quality in northern Thailand? What are these three learned fellows trying to tell us I wonder, what messages are they sending, is there a suggestion here that they might know more than other mere mortals about the pollution problems in northern Thailand or perhaps that they are better equipped to discuss the problem. I don't know.

I can't believe those things to be true since there's no obvious link between the subject matter and an advanced degree in Information Systems, Statistical Analysis (within the insurance industry) or Sociology and none of those "scholars" seem to have lived in the region any longer than the rest of us hence, they don't bring substantial first hand experience to the debate that isn't already present. I'm also troubled by the notion that relatively new posters find the need to declare their higher academic qualifications in order to try and fast track their credibility and standing and that sixty plus year old posters need to respond in kind, personally, at age 62 I'm strongly inclined to believe that my university work of forty years ago has precious little bearing on the knowledge I hold today and even less on my current approach to problem solving.

It's all very confusing and slightly troubling, but there you are, that's life.

CM you complained about my anecdotal evidence, and now you complain about statistical evidence. Some people just like to complain.

Untrue in fact, will you please show us where I have done those things you claim in this thread? I don't care for your arrogance or pomposity but that's hardly a complaint and is certainly not related to the subject matter.

Edited October 27, 2011 by chiang mai

[villagefarang]

The notion that one particular locale can be quarantined and completely isolated from a regional problem seems far fetched to me, at least where I live. Anecdotally it may be difficult to perceive atmospheric variation between ones nose and the fingers of an outstretched arm but expanding ones view to incorporate a more distant horizon, one can see much more, at least where I live. Though there are perceived differences between two particular points on the compass those differences are often brief and transitory as pollution drifts in the direction of the prevailing winds.

Looking around my garden at anytime other than when the fields around me are burning, one could possibly say there is no problem, at least where I live. Look a little further out and one might notice that various mountains and hills have disappeared from sight and there are plumes of smoke, large and small, regardless of which direction one chooses to look. Nighttime reveals the reddish glow of the long fire lines that stretch across the nearby hills.

Even when one cannot measure the pollution with instruments, one can definitely smell the smoke in the air and feel the irritation in ones eyes and sinuses. Charts and measurements do little to alleviate the effects of our yearly burning season nor does it matter which country the irritants come from.

I do find some relief in an air-conditioned room, however. Lets just hope that this year’s upcoming burning season will be as moderate as the last, at least where I live.

[changraider]

The notion that one particular locale can be quarantined and completely isolated from a regional problem seems far fetched to me, at least where I live. Anecdotally it may be difficult to perceive atmospheric variation between ones nose and the fingers of an outstretched arm but expanding ones view to incorporate a more distant horizon, one can see much more, at least where I live. Though there are perceived differences between two particular points on the compass those differences are often brief and transitory as pollution drifts in the direction of the prevailing winds.

Looking around my garden at anytime other than when the fields around me are burning, one could possibly say there is no problem, at least where I live. Look a little further out and one might notice that various mountains and hills have disappeared from sight and there are plumes of smoke, large and small, regardless of which direction one chooses to look. Nighttime reveals the reddish glow of the long fire lines that stretch across the nearby hills.

Even when one cannot measure the pollution with instruments, one can definitely smell the smoke in the air and feel the irritation in ones eyes and sinuses. Charts and measurements do little to alleviate the effects of our yearly burning season nor does it matter which country the irritants come from.

I do find some relief in an air-conditioned room, however. Lets just hope that this year’s upcoming burning season will be as moderate as the last, at least where I live.

VF I think from your numerous photos here and elsewhere that you live on a plain (forgive me if I'm wrong). I live in a mountainous highly forested area. I am not a meteorologist by any means ( though I am a lapsed statistician among other things), this may explain the difference. Also many of the farms in my neighbourhood plough the stubble in (as we do on our farm) rather than burn it, which probably also helps.

[villagefarang]

You are indeed correct about where I live. The view from my front yard looks like this.

[Garry]

You are indeed correct about where I live. The view from my front yard looks like this.

Hi VF,

Nice photos as usual. Still the same camera and I gather you haven't retouched the photos? I think people would be surprised what camera you are using. It takes excellent photos. I try to tell people where I work, how wonderfully green and visually appealing the rural areas of Thailand can be. Especially up in our neck of the woods. Until I show them personal photos, they still have no real concept.

In closing: I always wondered what the view would be like from your balcony. Now I know, from a photographers' perspective that is.

Cheers,

Garry