A high-performance computing resource allows us to conduct numerical simulations with a horizontal grid spacing that is sufficiently high to resolve cloud systems. The cutting-edge computational capability, which was provided by the K computer at RIKEN in Japan, enabled the authors to perform long-term, global simulations of air pollutions and clouds with unprecedentedly high horizontal resolutions. In this study, a next generation model capable of simulating global air pollutions with O(10 km) grid spacing by coupling an atmospheric chemistry model to the Non-hydrostatic Icosahedral Atmospheric Model (NICAM) was performed. Using the newly developed model, month-long simulations for July were conducted with 14 km grid spacing on the K computer. Regarding the global distributions of aerosol optical thickness (AOT), it was found that the correlation coefficient (CC) between the simulation and AERONET measurements was approximately 0.7, and the normalized mean bias was -10%. The simulated AOT was also compared with satellite-retrieved values; the CC was approximately 0.6. The radiative effects due to each chemical species (dust, sea salt, organics, and sulfate) were also calculated and compared with multiple measurements. As a result, the simulated fluxes of upward shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere and the surface compared well with the observed values, whereas those of downward shortwave radiation at the surface were underestimated, even if all aerosol components were considered. However, the aerosol radiative effects on the downward shortwave flux at the surface were found to be as high as 10 W/m2 in a global scale; thus, simulated aerosol distributions can strongly affect the simulated air temperature and dynamic circulation.

1.
O.
Boucher
 et al, “Clouds and aerosols”, in
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
, edited by
T. F.
Stocker
, et al
(
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK and New York, USA
,
2013
), pp.
571
658
.
2.
G.
Myhre
 et al,
Atmos. Chem. Phys.
13
,
1853
1877
(
2013
)
3.
J.-L. F.
Li
 et al,
Geophys. Res. Lett.
35
,
L19710
(
2008
)
4.
D.
Goto
 et al,
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
120
(
12
),
6247
6270
(
2015
)
5.
H.
Tomita
and
M.
Satoh
,
Fluid Dyn. Res.
34
,
357
400
(
2004
)
6.
M.
Satoh
 et al,
J. Comput. Phys.
227
,
3486
3514
(
2008
)
7.
M.
Satoh
 et al,
PEPS
1
,
18
(
2014
)
8.
B. N.
Holben
 et al,
Remote Sens. Environ.
66
,
1
16
(
1998
)
9.
D. M.
Winker
 et al,
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
,
91
,
1211
1229
(
2010
)
10.
R. C.
Levy
 et al,
Atmos. Meas. Tech.
6
,
2989
3034
(
2013
)
11.
K.
Suzuki
 et al,
Geophys. Res. Lett.
35
,
L19817
(
2008
)
12.
D.
Goto
 et al 
Geosci. Model Dev.
8
,
235
259
(
2015
)
13.
D.
Goto
 et al 
Atmos. Environ.
140
,
320
332
(
2016
)
14.
T.
Nakajima
 et al 
submitted to PEPS
(
2016
)
15.
H.
Tomita
J. Meteo. Soc. Jpn.
86A
,
107
119
(
2008
)
16.
T.
Takemura
 et al 
J. Geophys. Res.
110
,
D02202
(
2005
).
17.
M.
Watanabe
 et al 
J. Clim.
23
,
6312
6335
(
2010
)
18.
G.
Janssens-Maenhout
 et al,
Atmos. Chem. Phys.
15
,
11411
11432
(
2015
)
19.
R. F.
Adler
 et al,
J. Hydrometeorol
4
,
1147
1167
(
2003
)
20.
E.
Oikawa
 et al,
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
118
,
3687
3708
(
2013
)
21.
K. E.
Trenbirth
 et al 
BAMS
,
311
323
(
2009
)
22.
M.
Wild
 et al 
Clim. Dyn.
44
,
3393
3429
(
2014
)
This content is only available via PDF.