Simulations of Emissions, Air Quality, and Climate Contribution in Southeast Asia for March and December

  • Teerachai Amnuaylojaroen
  • Mary C. Barth
  • Gabriele Pfister
  • Cindy Bruyere
Part of the Springer Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry book series (SPRINGERREMO)


Air pollution is a major concern over Southeast Asia, especially in March when biomass burning and anthropogenic emissions both contribute significantly to air quality in terms of gases and aerosols. This work explores the sensitivity of air quality in terms of ozone in Southeast Asia from future emissions and climate. Simulations with the Nested Regional Climate Model coupled with Chemistry (NRCM-Chem) with 60 and 12 km grid sizes were performed for March and December during 2030–2034 and present day (2005–2009). The NRCM-Chem model employs initial and boundary conditions from the Community Climate System Version 3 (CCSM3) for meteorological variables and Community Atmospheric Model with Chemistry (CAM-Chem) for chemical species. The emission inventories include anthropogenic, biogenic, and biomass burning emissions. The future anthropogenic emissions are the RCP4.5 scenario from CAM-Chem emissions, while biomass burning emissions are the same in both present-day and 2030–2034 simulations. Three simulations were conducted for: (1) present day (2005–2009), (2) future day using the RCP4.5 climate scenario and present anthropogenic emission, and (3) future day using the RCP4.5 climate scenario and future anthropogenic emission. We find, by comparing the NRCM-Chem results with the CAM-Chem results (at a coarser grid spacing of ~200 km), that the two model results have a similar spatial pattern in the present day over Southeast Asia, and they agree fairly well compared to ground-based observations from Pollution Control Department in Thailand. Model results indicate that climate change alone increases ozone concentrations by about 30% in Southeast Asia, while the combination of climate and emission changes in the future increase ozone by another 10% compared to the simulation with only future climate change.


Ozone Southeast Asia CAM-Chem model 



The study was partially supported by NSF CHEM award 1049058. We are thankful for the Thai Pollution Control Department (PCD) and Thai Meteorological Department (TMD) providing their air quality (O3, CO, and NO2) and meteorological (temperature and precipitation) observation data. We also acknowledge the Global Modelling and Assimilation Office (GMAO) and the GES DISC for the dissemination of MERRA and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) data. We acknowledge Associate Professor Dr. Jiemjai Kreasuwun from Chiang Mai University for kindly suggestion and Jean-Francois Lamarque for his assistance with CAM-Chem. NCAR is operated by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) under sponsorship of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Amnuaylojaroen T, Barth MC, Emmons LK, Carmichael GR, Kreasuwun J, Prasitwattanaseree S (2014) Effect of different emission inventories on modeled ozone and carbon monoxide in Southeast Asia. Atmos Chem Phys 14:12983–12012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badarinath KVS, Kharol SK, Latha KM, Chand TR, Prasad VK, Jyothsna AN, Samatha K (2007) Multiyear ground-based and satellite observations of aerosol properties over a tropical urban area in India. Atmos Sci Lett 8(1):7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badarinath KVS, Sharma AR, Kharol SK, Prasad VK (2009) Variations in CO, O3 and black carbon aerosol mass concentrations associated with planetary boundary layer (PBL) over tropical urban environment in India. J Atmos Chem 62(1):73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruyere CL, Done JM, Holland GJ, Fredrick S (2014) Bias correction of global models for regional climate simulation of high-impact weather. Climate Dynam 43:1847–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carslaw KS, Gordon H, Hamilton DS, Johnson JS, Regayre LA, Yoshioka M, Pringle KJ (2017) Aerosols in the pre-industrial atmosphere. Curr Climate Change Rep 3(1):1–15Google Scholar
  6. Charlson RJ, Schwartz SE, Hales JM, Cess RD, Coakley JA Jr, Hansen JE, Hofmann DJ (1992) Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols. Science 255(5043):423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land-surface/hydrology model with the Penn State/NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: model description and implementation. Mon Weather Rev 129:569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chin M, Rood RB, Lin S–J, Muller JF, Thompson AM (2000) Atmospheric sulfur cycle in the global model GOCART: model description and global properties. J Geophys Res 105:24671–24687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins WD, Bitz CM, Blackmon ML, Bonan GB, Bretherton CS, Carton JA, Chang P, Doney SC, Hack JJ, Henderson TB, Kiehl JT, Large WG, Mckenna DS, Santer BD, Smith RD (2006) The Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3). J Climate 19(11):2122–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Done JM, Holland GJ, Bruyere CL, Leung LR, Suzuki-Parker A (2013) Modeling high-impact weather and climate: lessons from a tropical cyclone perspective. Clim Change 129:381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emmons LK, Walters S, Hess PG, Lamarque J-F, Pfister GG, Fillmore D, Granier C, Guenther A, Kinnison D, Laepple T, Orlando J, Tie X, Tyndall G, Wiedinmyer C, Baughcum SL, Kloster S (2010) Description and evaluation of the Model for Ozone and Related chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4). Geosci Model Dev 3(1):43–67Google Scholar
  12. Fast JD, Gustafson WI, Easter RC, Zaveri RA, Barnard JC, Chapman EG, Grell GA, Peckham SE (2006) Evolution of ozone, particulates, and aerosol direct radiative forcing in the vicinity of Houston using a fully coupled meteorology-chemistry-aerosol model. J Geophys Res 111(D21305). https://doi:10.1029/2005JD006721Google Scholar
  13. Granier C et al (2011) Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emission of air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980-2010 period. Clim Change 109:163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grell GA, Peckham SE, Schmitz R, Mckeen SA, Frost G, Shamarock WC, Eder B (2005) Fully coupled online chemistry within the WRF model. Atmos Environ 39:6957–6975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guenther A, Karl T, Harley P, Wiedinmyer C, Palmer P, Geron C (2006) Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature). Atmos Chem Phys 6:3181–3210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogrefe CB, Lynn K, Civerolo J-Y, Ku J, Rosenthal C, Rosenzweig R, Goldberg S, Gaffin K, Kinney PL (2004) Simulating changes in regional air pollution over the eastern United States due to changes in global and regional climate and emissions. J Geophys Res 109(D22).
  17. Huffman GJ, Bolvin DT (2012) TRMM and other data precipitation data set document.
  18. Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ, Shephard MW, Clough SA, Collins WD (2008) Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res 113(D13).
  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) Emission Scenarios, edited by N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart, pp. 570, Cambridge Univ. Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamarque J-F, Kyle G, Meinshausen M, Riahi K, Smith S, van Vuuren D, Conley A, Vitt F (2011) Global and regional evolution of short-lived radiatively-active gases and aerosols in the Representative Concentration Pathways. Clim Change 109:191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin C–YC, Jacob DJ, Fiore AM (2001) Trends in exceedances of the ozone air quality standard in the continental United States, 1980-1998. Atmos Environ 35:3217–3228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu Z, Street DG (2012) The Southeast Asia Composition, Cloud, Climate Coupling Regional Study Emission Inventory.
  23. Mitchell JM Jr (1971) The effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate with special reference to temperature near the earth’s surface. J Appl Meteorol 10(4):703–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neu JL, Prather MJ (2012) Toward a more physical representation of precipitation scavenging in global chemistry models: cloud overlap and ice physics and their impact on tropospheric ozone. Atmos Chem Phys 12:3289–3310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nolte C, Gilliland A, Hogrefe C (2008) Linking Global and Regional Models to Simulate U.S. Air Quality in the Year 2050. In: Borrego C, Miranda AI (eds) Air pollution modeling and its application XIX. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series Series C: Environmental Security, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 559–567Google Scholar
  26. Pfister GG, Walters S, Lamarque J-F, Fast J, Barth MC, Wong J, Done J, Holland G, Bruyere CL (2014) Projections of future summertime ozone over the U.S. J Geophys Res 119:5559–5582Google Scholar
  27. Rienecker MM, Suarez MJ, Gelaro R, Todling R, Bacmeister J, Liu E et al (2011) MERRA – NASA’s modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications. J Climate 24:3624–3648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandu A, Sander R (2006) Technical note: Simulating chemical systems in Fortran90 and Matlab with the Kinetic PreProcessor KPP-2.1. Atmos Chem Phys 6:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schnell JL, Prather MJ, Josse B, Naik V, Horowitz W et al (2015) Use of North American and European air quality networks to evaluate global chemistry-climate modeling of surface ozone. Atmos Chem Phys 15:10581–10596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Duhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Duda MG, Huang X-Y, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF version 3, NCAR Technical noteGoogle Scholar
  31. Tagaris E, Manomaiphiboon K, Liao K-J, Leung LR, Woo J-H, He S, Amar P, Russell AG (2007) Impacts of global climate change and emissions on regional ozone and fine particulate matter concentrations over the United States. J Geophys Res 112:D14312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson G, Rasmussen RM, Manning K (2004) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part I: Description and sensitivity analysis. Mon Weather Rev 132:519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tie X, Madronich S, Walters S, Zhang R, Rasch P, Collins W (2003) Effects of clouds on photolysis and oxidants in the troposphere. J Geophys Res 108(D20):4642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wesley ML (1989) Parameterization of surface resistance to gaseous dry deposition in regional numerical models. Atmos Environ 16:1293–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiedinmyer C, Akagi SK, Yokelson RJ, Emmons LK, Al-Saadi JA, Orlando JJ, Soja AJ (2011) The Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN) – a high resolution global model to estimate the emissions from open burning. Geosci Model Dev 4:625–641. https://doi:10.5194/gmd-4-625-2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teerachai Amnuaylojaroen
    • 1
  • Mary C. Barth
    • 2
  • Gabriele Pfister
    • 2
  • Cindy Bruyere
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Energy and EnvironmentUniversity of PhayaoPhayaoThailand
  2. 2.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations