Display MoreParadigmoia,
We have discussed all that along ago. The real fact is that all the mumbling about emissivity errors is without any foundation.
For example you omitted to note ( as usual ) that the emitted energy vs emissivity dependence is weak.
The iterative process has nothing to do with the COP rise.
Lugano is valid.
I would ask you to avoid to repeat false and misleading information. Otherwise,,,, no problem here I'm to discuss again an again,
rb0. Have you actually duplicated the numerical calculations in TC's report, or linked those to the equations therein? I have. Like to discuss?
Or, if we are just playing PR word games let me point out that you have repeated your view on here many times and patiently by various posters been led through what are your misconceptions. each time when we get to the nub of it you vanish. Only to pop up a few weeks later making the same statements. That is the behaviour of a propagandist, and I have no sympathy with it.
"The emitted energy vs emissivity dependence is weak". That is only true if, as you have consistently misstated, there is only one emissivity value of interest here. It is true that the band emissivity change and total emissivity change alter COP in opposite directions. What you neglect is that over the relevant temperatures band emissivity does not change, and over the relevant (used in the Lugano report) temperatures total emissivity changes a lot. From 0.8 to 0.4.