Joe writes:
I'm curious why you did not plot the Aguajito data.
I was searching for data from a recent eruption (for example St Helen's volcano), since data from a recent eruption represents the initial U-Pb ratios more accurately than a historic eruption. I wasn't able to find U-Pb data of zircons from St Helen's volcano. Data from the La Virgen volcano, which erupted in 1746, might also possibly represent the initial ratio.
After discovering that the La Virgen data fits my model, I proceeded to check whether the data from La Reforma also fits my model. Since it was a poor fit, I didn't see any reason why I should proceed to do further regresion on more data.
Joe writes:
The data you used do not support your model in any convincing fashion. You even state this same fact and then tout your model as superior. It's not.
The correlation factor may not be the best way to prove the superiority of my model, but I can't think of a better way to compare both models? Perhaps you know of a better method to compare 2 different models?
Joe writes:
Your comparison to concordia using these data has a fundamental flaw in logic (do you know what that is?)
With the data I have, I couldn't think of a better comparison method. (I don't think you believe that I would reach a very much different result if I used the other types of regression as Jonf suggests, and I don't think you see any purpose of doing that)
Please enlighten me telling the flaw in logic, and if possible a better comparison method.
™ Version 4.2
