Should all sensitivity parameters have the same sign convention? about climatelaboratorybook HOT 2 CLOSED

\lambda_0 is defined positive in these notes:

• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/analytical-efolding.html
• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/sensitivity-feedback.html#the-no-feedback-response
• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/advanced-sensitivity-feedback.html#equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-ecs
• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/clouds.html#clear-sky-and-cloud-feedbacks
• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/one-dim-ebm.html#relationship-between-b-and-feedback-parameters

But \lambda_0 is negative in these places:

• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/advanced-sensitivity-feedback.html#every-climate-model-has-a-planck-feedback
• https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/advanced-sensitivity-feedback.html#feedbacks-diagnosed-from-complex-climate-models

from climatelaboratorybook.

This is fixed in 088a35a

\lambda_0 is consistently treated as a positive number in all notebooks

Where necessary, when we discuss the Planck feedback, we now refer to it as -\lambda_0, e.g. here: https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/advanced-sensitivity-feedback.html#every-climate-model-has-a-planck-feedback

The \lambda_i feedback parameters and the f_i feedback factors are always treated as signed quantities, with positive values for positive feedbacks. This means the sign of \lambda_0 is inconsistent with its physical interpretation as a negative feedback, but it simplifies much of the notation.

It's a compromise but at least it's consistent now throughout the notes.

from climatelaboratorybook.