The Global Atmosphere‐aerosol Model ICON‐A‐HAM2.3–Initial Model Evaluation and Effects of Radiation Balance Tuning on Aerosol Optical Thickness

Abstract The Hamburg Aerosol Module version 2.3 (HAM2.3) from the ECHAM6.3‐HAM2.3 global atmosphere‐aerosol model is coupled to the recently developed icosahedral nonhydrostatic ICON‐A (icon‐aes‐1.3.00) global atmosphere model to yield the new ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 atmosphere‐aerosol model. The ICON‐A and ECHAM6.3 host models use different dynamical cores, parameterizations of vertical mixing due to sub‐grid scale turbulence, and parameter settings for radiation balance tuning. Here, we study the role of the different host models for simulated aerosol optical thickness (AOT) and evaluate impacts of using HAM2.3 and the ECHAM6‐HAM2.3 two‐moment cloud microphysics scheme on several meteorological variables. Sensitivity runs show that a positive AOT bias over the subtropical oceans is remedied in ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 because of a different default setting of a parameter in the moist convection parameterization of the host models. The global mean AOT is biased low compared to MODIS satellite instrument retrievals in ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 and ECHAM6.3‐HAM2.3, but the bias is larger in ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 because negative AOT biases over the Amazon, the African rain forest, and the northern Indian Ocean are no longer compensated by high biases over the sub‐tropical oceans. ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 shows a moderate improvement with respect to AOT observations at AERONET sites. A multivariable bias score combining biases of several meteorological variables into a single number is larger in ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 compared to standard ICON‐A and standard ECHAM6.3. In the tropics, this multivariable bias is of similar magnitude in ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 and in ECHAM6.3‐HAM2.3. In the extra‐tropics, a smaller multivariable bias is found for ICON‐A‐HAM2.3 than for ECHAM6.3‐HAM2.3.