about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,748 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Rain in Columbus and the second variable is Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio.  The chart goes from 1978 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The rain must have washed away all the democratic tendencies, leaving the Republican votes high and dry!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate a comic-book-style illustration set in Columbus, Ohio, during a heavy rainstorm. In the scene, depict the cityscape with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern reminiscent of 1960s comic books. Show the darkened sky pouring heavy rain, washing away democratic symbols, while the Republican presidential candidate's votes remain unscathed, standing high and dry amidst the deluge. Keep the visuals simple and focused on capturing the contrasting impact of the rain on the election results. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A photo-realistic image A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Magic realism Cubism a funny image you would see on reddit
ChatGPT: A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio, in the following situation: The rain must have washed away all the democratic tendencies, leaving the Republican votes high and dry!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Columbus, Ohio, heavy rain pours down from the darkened sky, washing away any traces of democratic tendencies. Despite the wet conditions, the Republican presidential candidate's votes stand high and dry, unaffected by the deluge.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s ] and depicting this scene: In Columbus, Ohio, heavy rain pours down from the darkened sky, washing away any traces of democratic tendencies. Despite the wet conditions, the Republican presidential candidate's votes stand high and dry, unaffected by the deluge. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate a comic-book-style illustration set in Columbus, Ohio, during a heavy rainstorm. In the scene, depict the cityscape with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern reminiscent of 1960s comic books. Show the darkened sky pouring heavy rain, washing away democratic symbols, while the Republican presidential candidate's votes remain unscathed, standing high and dry amidst the deluge. Keep the visuals simple and focused on capturing the contrasting impact of the rain on the election results.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Rain in Columbus caused Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio

The Journal of Meteorological Politics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from NOAA National Climate Data Center and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and p < 0.01 for 1978 to 2020.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Weather has long been a subject of interest due to its undeniable impact on various aspects of human life. From affecting agricultural yields to influencing consumer behavior, the elements have proven to be a formidable force in shaping societal dynamics. In the realm of politics, the influence of weather on voter turnout and voting preferences has been a topic of both intrigue and debate. It is in this context that we have ventured to investigate the curious relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio.

As the old saying goes, "How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together." Much like the construction of an igloo, our research has pieced together an unconventional relationship between rain and political preferences, demonstrating the potential impact of precipitation on the electoral landscape. Our study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of this whimsical connection, shedding light on the intriguing interplay of weather patterns and voting behavior.

The state of Ohio holds a unique position in the American political landscape, often being a pivotal battleground in presidential elections. Thus, understanding the factors that shape voting behavior in this state is of utmost importance. Our research endeavors to contribute to this understanding by delving into the nuances of how rain, or indeed shine, influences the electorate's support for Republican presidential candidates.

Chuckling aside, the statistical evidence we have uncovered points to a compelling correlation between rainfall and Republican votes in Ohio. Through the utilization of robust datasets and rigorous statistical analyses, we have identified a strikingly high correlation coefficient and a statistically significant p-value, providing empirical support for the influence of rain on voting patterns. These findings open the door to intriguing discussions on how meteorological conditions can sway the political compass of a state.

As we navigate through the data, we cannot help but marvel at the unexpected twists and turns of this exploration. Not unlike a plot twist in a mystery novel, the impact of rain on voting preferences unravels before us, beckoning a deeper understanding of the intricate fabric of human decision-making. Our study, therefore, serves as a testament to the multifaceted nature of politics and the often surprising influences that come into play.

In the sections that follow, we will delve into the methodology employed in our analysis and present a detailed exposition of our findings. By doing so, we aim to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the intersection of weather and politics, and perhaps bring a bit of sunshine to the understanding of this unique relationship.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Weather has long been a subject of interest due to its undeniable impact on various aspects of human life. From affecting agricultural yields to influencing consumer behavior, the elements have proven to be a formidable force in shaping societal dynamics. In the realm of politics, the influence of weather on voter turnout and voting preferences has been a topic of both intrigue and debate. It is in this context that we have ventured to investigate the curious relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio.
As the old saying goes, "How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together." Much like the construction of an igloo, our research has pieced together an unconventional relationship between rain and political preferences, demonstrating the potential impact of precipitation on the electoral landscape. Our study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of this whimsical connection, shedding light on the intriguing interplay of weather patterns and voting behavior.
The state of Ohio holds a unique position in the American political landscape, often being a pivotal battleground in presidential elections. Thus, understanding the factors that shape voting behavior in this state is of utmost importance. Our research endeavors to contribute to this understanding by delving into the nuances of how rain, or indeed shine, influences the electorate's support for Republican presidential candidates.
Chuckling aside, the statistical evidence we have uncovered points to a compelling correlation between rainfall and Republican votes in Ohio. Through the utilization of robust datasets and rigorous statistical analyses, we have identified a strikingly high correlation coefficient and a statistically significant p-value, providing empirical support for the influence of rain on voting patterns. These findings open the door to intriguing discussions on how meteorological conditions can sway the political compass of a state.
As we navigate through the data, we cannot help but marvel at the unexpected twists and turns of this exploration. Not unlike a plot twist in a mystery novel, the impact of rain on voting preferences unravels before us, beckoning a deeper understanding of the intricate fabric of human decision-making. Our study, therefore, serves as a testament to the multifaceted nature of politics and the often surprising influences that come into play.
In the sections that follow, we will delve into the methodology employed in our analysis and present a detailed exposition of our findings. By doing so, we aim to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the intersection of weather and politics, and perhaps bring a bit of sunshine to the understanding of this unique relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between weather and voting behavior has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with numerous studies seeking to unravel the potential impact of meteorological conditions on political preferences. In "Rainfall and Electoral Outcomes: A Comprehensive Analysis," Smith and Doe examine the association between rainfall and votes for Republican presidential candidates in various states, providing valuable insight into the influence of precipitation on electoral dynamics. Similarly, Jones et al. explore the effects of weather on voter turnout and candidate support in "Weathering Politics: The Nexus of Weather and Elections," shedding light on the complex interplay between atmospheric factors and electoral decision-making.

As researchers delve deeper into the whimsical realm of weather's influence on politics, it becomes increasingly evident that the correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio is indeed a topic worthy of attention. With a statistical significance that holds water, the findings of "Raindrops and Right-leaning Leanings" by Weatherly and Votez show a clear connection between precipitation and Republican support in the Buckeye State. The authors posit that the relationship between rain and Republican votes may not just be a mere coincidence, but rather a precipitation predisposition.

Speaking of rain and politics, have you heard about the weather forecaster who ran for office? He made a hail Mary pass in his campaign! In "Stormy Weather, Stormy Votes: A Political Meteorology Analysis," Nova and Gale examine the impact of inclement weather on voting patterns in Ohio, highlighting the surprising sway that rain holds over Republican support. Their findings present a rather cloudy picture of the relationship between weather and politics, as voters seem to be influenced by more than just political winds.

Turning to non-fiction works that may offer valuable insights into the interplay of weather and voting behavior, "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner provides a thought-provoking analysis of unconventional factors that shape human decisions, offering a lens through which to examine the unexpected influence of weather on political preferences. "The Signal and The Noise" by Silver delves into the intricacies of statistical forecasting, providing a framework for understanding the signal amidst the noise in the association between rainfall and Republican votes.

Delving into the realm of fiction, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" by Barrett and "A Storm of Swords" by Martin may not directly address the connection between rain in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio, but their imaginative narratives certainly capture the evocative power of weather in shaping human experiences. Additionally, the board game "Risk: Storm Edition" may metaphorically embody the political gamble that weather presents, captivating players with the unpredictable nature of meteorological conditions.

Ah, the irony of political precipitation! As the literature reflects, the link between rain in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio is a matter worthy of both academic inquiry and a good laugh.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from NOAA National Climate Data Center and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 1978 to 2020

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Weather has long been a subject of interest due to its undeniable impact on various aspects of human life. From affecting agricultural yields to influencing consumer behavior, the elements have proven to be a formidable force in shaping societal dynamics. In the realm of politics, the influence of weather on voter turnout and voting preferences has been a topic of both intrigue and debate. It is in this context that we have ventured to investigate the curious relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio.
As the old saying goes, "How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together." Much like the construction of an igloo, our research has pieced together an unconventional relationship between rain and political preferences, demonstrating the potential impact of precipitation on the electoral landscape. Our study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of this whimsical connection, shedding light on the intriguing interplay of weather patterns and voting behavior.
The state of Ohio holds a unique position in the American political landscape, often being a pivotal battleground in presidential elections. Thus, understanding the factors that shape voting behavior in this state is of utmost importance. Our research endeavors to contribute to this understanding by delving into the nuances of how rain, or indeed shine, influences the electorate's support for Republican presidential candidates.
Chuckling aside, the statistical evidence we have uncovered points to a compelling correlation between rainfall and Republican votes in Ohio. Through the utilization of robust datasets and rigorous statistical analyses, we have identified a strikingly high correlation coefficient and a statistically significant p-value, providing empirical support for the influence of rain on voting patterns. These findings open the door to intriguing discussions on how meteorological conditions can sway the political compass of a state.
As we navigate through the data, we cannot help but marvel at the unexpected twists and turns of this exploration. Not unlike a plot twist in a mystery novel, the impact of rain on voting preferences unravels before us, beckoning a deeper understanding of the intricate fabric of human decision-making. Our study, therefore, serves as a testament to the multifaceted nature of politics and the often surprising influences that come into play.
In the sections that follow, we will delve into the methodology employed in our analysis and present a detailed exposition of our findings. By doing so, we aim to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the intersection of weather and politics, and perhaps bring a bit of sunshine to the understanding of this unique relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio, our research team employed a series of data collection and analysis methods that were as thorough as an umbrella in a rainstorm.

Data Collection:
We assembled historical precipitation data from the NOAA National Climate Data Center, noting the daily, monthly, and yearly rainfall measurements in Columbus, Ohio. This information was complemented with data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, encompassing the votes cast for Republican presidential candidates in Ohio from 1978 to 2020. Our team meticulously gathered these datasets, ensuring that we captured a comprehensive and representative sample of the electoral and meteorological landscape over the years.

Statistical Analysis:
Once the data collection phase was completed, we embraced statistical tools and techniques with the enthusiasm of a rainy day movie marathon. The statistical analysis involved the calculation of correlation coefficients and the implementation of regression models to ascertain the strength and direction of the relationship between rainfall and Republican votes.

A Witty Detour:
As witticism is our forte, let's add some levity to the otherwise-dry methodology section. If a meteorologist gets too close to a rain cloud, does it drizzle on them? Clear-ly, our methods were meticulous and thorough, with the goal of analyzing the precipitation-presidential candidate correlation with precision.

Model Development:
Our team developed a specialized regression model, cunningly named the "Rain-Repub Model," which aimed to capture the nuances of how rainfall impacts Republican voting patterns in Ohio. This model incorporated various meteorological and electoral variables, such as precipitation intensity, duration, and historical voting trends, to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the relationship under investigation.

Harnessing the Power of Time-Series Analysis:
Additionally, we applied time-series analysis techniques to examine the temporal patterns of rainfall and Republican votes, akin to decoding the rhythmic dance of raindrops on a tin roof. This approach allowed us to unravel the dynamic interplay between weather events and electoral outcomes over the decades, providing valuable insights into the long-term impact of rain on political preferences.

A Statistical Umbrella:
We deployed a robust statistical framework, akin to a reliable umbrella in a downpour, to conduct hypothesis testing and ascertain the significance of our findings. Our analysis involved rigorous hypothesis testing, assessing the statistical significance of the correlation coefficient and conducting sensitivity analyses to ensure the robustness of our conclusions.

Ensuring Data Quality:
To maintain the integrity and reliability of our analysis, we meticulously screened the datasets for outliers and discrepancies, ensuring that our findings were as consistent as the pitter-patter of raindrops. Additionally, we performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the stability of our results under various statistical assumptions, safeguarding the validity of our conclusions.

In summary, our methodology was designed to capture the nuances of the rainfall-presidential candidate relationship with the meticulousness of a gardener tending to a rain-soaked garden. Through the implementation of rigorous statistical methods and the development of tailored regression models, our research aimed to unravel the intricate connections between weather and voting patterns, creating a captivating narrative of precipitation's influence on political preferences.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from NOAA National Climate Data Center and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .

For the time period 1978 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9440926, r-squared of 0.8913108, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Weather has long been a subject of interest due to its undeniable impact on various aspects of human life. From affecting agricultural yields to influencing consumer behavior, the elements have proven to be a formidable force in shaping societal dynamics. In the realm of politics, the influence of weather on voter turnout and voting preferences has been a topic of both intrigue and debate. It is in this context that we have ventured to investigate the curious relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio.
As the old saying goes, "How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together." Much like the construction of an igloo, our research has pieced together an unconventional relationship between rain and political preferences, demonstrating the potential impact of precipitation on the electoral landscape. Our study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of this whimsical connection, shedding light on the intriguing interplay of weather patterns and voting behavior.
The state of Ohio holds a unique position in the American political landscape, often being a pivotal battleground in presidential elections. Thus, understanding the factors that shape voting behavior in this state is of utmost importance. Our research endeavors to contribute to this understanding by delving into the nuances of how rain, or indeed shine, influences the electorate's support for Republican presidential candidates.
Chuckling aside, the statistical evidence we have uncovered points to a compelling correlation between rainfall and Republican votes in Ohio. Through the utilization of robust datasets and rigorous statistical analyses, we have identified a strikingly high correlation coefficient and a statistically significant p-value, providing empirical support for the influence of rain on voting patterns. These findings open the door to intriguing discussions on how meteorological conditions can sway the political compass of a state.
As we navigate through the data, we cannot help but marvel at the unexpected twists and turns of this exploration. Not unlike a plot twist in a mystery novel, the impact of rain on voting preferences unravels before us, beckoning a deeper understanding of the intricate fabric of human decision-making. Our study, therefore, serves as a testament to the multifaceted nature of politics and the often surprising influences that come into play.
In the sections that follow, we will delve into the methodology employed in our analysis and present a detailed exposition of our findings. By doing so, we aim to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the intersection of weather and politics, and perhaps bring a bit of sunshine to the understanding of this unique relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis of the relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926. This notable correlation suggests a strong positive association between these two variables, indicating that as rainfall in Columbus increases, so does the likelihood of votes for the Republican candidate. It seems that rain may indeed have a peculiar way of "dripping" its influence into the voting booths of Ohio.

The calculated r-squared value of 0.8913108 further corroborates the strength of the relationship between rainfall and Republican votes, indicating that approximately 89.13% of the variability in votes for the Republican candidate can be explained by rainfall in Columbus. It appears that the precipitation patterns in Columbus may hold a substantial sway over the political preferences of the electorate, truly making it a "rainmaker" in the realm of Ohio politics.

Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 obtained from the statistical analysis signifies a high level of confidence in the results, lending further support to the significance of the observed correlation. It seems that the impact of rain on voting behavior in Ohio is not merely a "drizzle" but rather a substantial and noteworthy phenomenon that demands attention.

Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of the strong correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. The scatterplot depicts a clear pattern, showcasing how as rainfall increases, there is a discernible trend of higher support for the Republican candidate. It is indeed a striking visual demonstration of the influence of rain on political preferences, serving as a visual testament to the profound connection we have uncovered.

In summary, our findings present compelling evidence of the association between rainfall in Columbus and support for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. This curious correlation invites further contemplation and analysis, as we seek to unravel the intricate interplay of weather and politics in the Buckeye State.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between weather and voting behavior has been the subject of scholarly inquiry, with numerous studies seeking to unravel the potential impact of meteorological conditions on political preferences. In "Rainfall and Electoral Outcomes: A Comprehensive Analysis," Smith and Doe examine the association between rainfall and votes for Republican presidential candidates in various states, providing valuable insight into the influence of precipitation on electoral dynamics. Similarly, Jones et al. explore the effects of weather on voter turnout and candidate support in "Weathering Politics: The Nexus of Weather and Elections," shedding light on the complex interplay between atmospheric factors and electoral decision-making.
As researchers delve deeper into the whimsical realm of weather's influence on politics, it becomes increasingly evident that the correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio is indeed a topic worthy of attention. With a statistical significance that holds water, the findings of "Raindrops and Right-leaning Leanings" by Weatherly and Votez show a clear connection between precipitation and Republican support in the Buckeye State. The authors posit that the relationship between rain and Republican votes may not just be a mere coincidence, but rather a precipitation predisposition.
Speaking of rain and politics, have you heard about the weather forecaster who ran for office? He made a hail Mary pass in his campaign! In "Stormy Weather, Stormy Votes: A Political Meteorology Analysis," Nova and Gale examine the impact of inclement weather on voting patterns in Ohio, highlighting the surprising sway that rain holds over Republican support. Their findings present a rather cloudy picture of the relationship between weather and politics, as voters seem to be influenced by more than just political winds.
Turning to non-fiction works that may offer valuable insights into the interplay of weather and voting behavior, "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner provides a thought-provoking analysis of unconventional factors that shape human decisions, offering a lens through which to examine the unexpected influence of weather on political preferences. "The Signal and The Noise" by Silver delves into the intricacies of statistical forecasting, providing a framework for understanding the signal amidst the noise in the association between rainfall and Republican votes.
Delving into the realm of fiction, "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" by Barrett and "A Storm of Swords" by Martin may not directly address the connection between rain in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio, but their imaginative narratives certainly capture the evocative power of weather in shaping human experiences. Additionally, the board game "Risk: Storm Edition" may metaphorically embody the political gamble that weather presents, captivating players with the unpredictable nature of meteorological conditions.
Ah, the irony of political precipitation! As the literature reflects, the link between rain in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio is a matter worthy of both academic inquiry and a good laugh.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926. This notable correlation suggests a strong positive association between these two variables, indicating that as rainfall in Columbus increases, so does the likelihood of votes for the Republican candidate. It seems that rain may indeed have a peculiar way of "dripping" its influence into the voting booths of Ohio.
The calculated r-squared value of 0.8913108 further corroborates the strength of the relationship between rainfall and Republican votes, indicating that approximately 89.13% of the variability in votes for the Republican candidate can be explained by rainfall in Columbus. It appears that the precipitation patterns in Columbus may hold a substantial sway over the political preferences of the electorate, truly making it a "rainmaker" in the realm of Ohio politics.
Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 obtained from the statistical analysis signifies a high level of confidence in the results, lending further support to the significance of the observed correlation. It seems that the impact of rain on voting behavior in Ohio is not merely a "drizzle" but rather a substantial and noteworthy phenomenon that demands attention.
Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of the strong correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. The scatterplot depicts a clear pattern, showcasing how as rainfall increases, there is a discernible trend of higher support for the Republican candidate. It is indeed a striking visual demonstration of the influence of rain on political preferences, serving as a visual testament to the profound connection we have uncovered.
In summary, our findings present compelling evidence of the association between rainfall in Columbus and support for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. This curious correlation invites further contemplation and analysis, as we seek to unravel the intricate interplay of weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The remarkable correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio, as revealed by our study, aligns closely with previous research that has highlighted the influence of weather on voting behavior. The findings of Smith and Doe, as well as Weatherly and Votez, echoed the significance of precipitation in shaping electoral outcomes, and our study further solidifies this relationship with a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9440926. It seems that rain may not only dampen spirits but also sway political preferences, making it a truly precipitating factor in the Ohio electoral landscape.

The statistically significant p-value obtained in our analysis lends robust support to the notion that rain and Republican votes are not just a casual fling, but rather a substantive and meaningful relationship. The p-value of less than 0.01 serves as a resounding confirmation that the observed connection between rainfall and Republican support is not a mere "drizzle" of chance, but a pronounced and tangible phenomenon. It seems that rain in Columbus may indeed have a "pouring" impact on the voting patterns of Ohioans.

Our findings also resonate with the work of Nova and Gale, who delved into the captivating intersection of inclement weather and voting dynamics. The visual representation of our results, as depicted in Fig. 1, parallels the "cloudy" picture painted by Nova and Gale, reinforcing the notion that weather, particularly rainfall, holds a substantial sway over political preferences in Ohio. However, while we have solidified the relationship between rain and Republican votes, we cannot discount the potential for other unmeasured factors to also play a role in shaping electoral outcomes.

Speaking of unmeasured factors, did you hear about the weather-manipulating politician? He managed to "cloud" the judgment of voters by making it rain whenever he needed a boost in support.

Our study contributes to the understanding of the multifaceted influences that shape political decision-making, demonstrating that weather, much like a persistent dad joke, may persistently influence voting behavior. We hope that our research will prompt further investigation into the amplifying impact of weather conditions on political choices, and perhaps inspire a new genre of "climate-based" electoral forecasting.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Rain in Columbus and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Weather has long been a subject of interest due to its undeniable impact on various aspects of human life. From affecting agricultural yields to influencing consumer behavior, the elements have proven to be a formidable force in shaping societal dynamics. In the realm of politics, the influence of weather on voter turnout and voting preferences has been a topic of both intrigue and debate. It is in this context that we have ventured to investigate the curious relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio.
As the old saying goes, "How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together." Much like the construction of an igloo, our research has pieced together an unconventional relationship between rain and political preferences, demonstrating the potential impact of precipitation on the electoral landscape. Our study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of this whimsical connection, shedding light on the intriguing interplay of weather patterns and voting behavior.
The state of Ohio holds a unique position in the American political landscape, often being a pivotal battleground in presidential elections. Thus, understanding the factors that shape voting behavior in this state is of utmost importance. Our research endeavors to contribute to this understanding by delving into the nuances of how rain, or indeed shine, influences the electorate's support for Republican presidential candidates.
Chuckling aside, the statistical evidence we have uncovered points to a compelling correlation between rainfall and Republican votes in Ohio. Through the utilization of robust datasets and rigorous statistical analyses, we have identified a strikingly high correlation coefficient and a statistically significant p-value, providing empirical support for the influence of rain on voting patterns. These findings open the door to intriguing discussions on how meteorological conditions can sway the political compass of a state.
As we navigate through the data, we cannot help but marvel at the unexpected twists and turns of this exploration. Not unlike a plot twist in a mystery novel, the impact of rain on voting preferences unravels before us, beckoning a deeper understanding of the intricate fabric of human decision-making. Our study, therefore, serves as a testament to the multifaceted nature of politics and the often surprising influences that come into play.
In the sections that follow, we will delve into the methodology employed in our analysis and present a detailed exposition of our findings. By doing so, we aim to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the intersection of weather and politics, and perhaps bring a bit of sunshine to the understanding of this unique relationship.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926. This notable correlation suggests a strong positive association between these two variables, indicating that as rainfall in Columbus increases, so does the likelihood of votes for the Republican candidate. It seems that rain may indeed have a peculiar way of "dripping" its influence into the voting booths of Ohio.
The calculated r-squared value of 0.8913108 further corroborates the strength of the relationship between rainfall and Republican votes, indicating that approximately 89.13% of the variability in votes for the Republican candidate can be explained by rainfall in Columbus. It appears that the precipitation patterns in Columbus may hold a substantial sway over the political preferences of the electorate, truly making it a "rainmaker" in the realm of Ohio politics.
Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 obtained from the statistical analysis signifies a high level of confidence in the results, lending further support to the significance of the observed correlation. It seems that the impact of rain on voting behavior in Ohio is not merely a "drizzle" but rather a substantial and noteworthy phenomenon that demands attention.
Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of the strong correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. The scatterplot depicts a clear pattern, showcasing how as rainfall increases, there is a discernible trend of higher support for the Republican candidate. It is indeed a striking visual demonstration of the influence of rain on political preferences, serving as a visual testament to the profound connection we have uncovered.
In summary, our findings present compelling evidence of the association between rainfall in Columbus and support for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. This curious correlation invites further contemplation and analysis, as we seek to unravel the intricate interplay of weather and politics in the Buckeye State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In concluding, our research has illuminated a compelling and statistically significant relationship between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. The evidence points to a robust association, underscoring the intriguing influence of weather on political preferences in the Buckeye State. It appears that rain does more than just dampen the ground; it wields a surprising impact on the voting behavior of Ohioans.

Moreover, the calculated r-squared value of 0.8913108 highlights the substantial explanatory power of rainfall in Columbus on votes for the Republican candidate, affirming the adage that "every vote counts"—rain or shine. This brings a whole new meaning to the notion of a "waterproof" voting choice, doesn't it? With such a high variability explained by rainfall, it seems that Ohio's political climate is indeed heavily "clouded" by meteorological patterns.

On a visual note, the scatterplot in Fig. 1 unequivocally portrays the escalating support for the Republican candidate as precipitation increases, painting a vivid picture of the impact of rain on political inclinations. It seems that in Ohio, raindrops are not the only things falling; there's also a surge in votes for the Republican candidate. This unexpected correlation truly makes us appreciate the "wet and wild" nature of political dynamics in Ohio.

In light of these findings, it is clear that weather plays a nontrivial role in shaping political outcomes in Ohio. However, further research is needed to discern the underlying mechanisms and potential causality of this relationship. For now, our study stands as a notable contribution to understanding the Weather-Politics Nexus in the Buckeye State.

It is our hope that this research will not only pique the interest of fellow academics but also sprinkle a dash of humor into the serious discourse of weather's influence on politics. As for future investigations, we assert with lighthearted confidence: "Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts." Similarly, further research on this matter may lack the necessary "guts" to uncover new groundbreaking insights. Thus, it seems that in the realm of rain and politics in Columbus, our study has made it abundantly clear: "The joke's over! No rain, no gain, right? But seriously, folks, no more research is needed in this area."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Meteorological Politics


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Meteorological and Political Research (IMPR)


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Rain or Shine: A Political Downpour - The Precipitation-Presidential Candidate Relationship in Ohio with an abstract of In this paper, we delve into the fascinating correlation between rainfall in Columbus and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Ohio. Utilizing comprehensive datasets from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have embarked on a journey to uncover the surprising connections between weather and politics in the Buckeye State.
Our research team observed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9440926 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1978 to 2020. This compelling statistical evidence offers a compelling argument for the influence of rain on the voting behavior in Ohio. Certainly, precipitation seems to wield a considerable impact on the political landscape, making it rain votes for the Republican candidate in unexpected ways.
Furthermore, our findings shed light on the whimsical nature of human decision-making, affirming the old adage: "Some people feel the rain, others just get wet." Indeed, it appears that in Ohio, not only do people feel the rain, but they may also express their sentiments at the ballot box. We present a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, serving as a testament to the amusing and often unpredictable interplay of weather and voting patterns in the realm of politics.

ChatGPT:

Rainfall, voting behavior, Ohio, Republican candidate, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, weather and politics, precipitation impact, voting patterns, weather influence, political landscape, human decision-making, Ohio voting behavior, weather and voting, political downpour, precipitation-presidential candidate relationship, Columbus, NOAA National Climate Data Center, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Rain in Columbus
Detailed data title: Number of days with >= 0.1 inch/2.54 millimeters precipitation in the year at COLUMBUS HAP CREMEAN WP, OH US
Source: NOAA National Climate Data Center
See what else correlates with Rain in Columbus

Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio

Correlation r = 0.9440926 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.8913108 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Rain in Columbus) over the 9 years from 1978 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00013. 0.0001287761656976542600000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.94 in 0.013% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 7,765 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 8 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 8 because we have two variables measured over a period of 9 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.75, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
198019841992200020042008201220162020
Rain in Columbus (Precipitation days)798665799091848695
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio (Total votes)220654026785601894310235036028597602677820266141028410003154830




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([79,86,65,79,90,91,84,86,95,])
array_2 = np.array([2206540,2678560,1894310,2350360,2859760,2677820,2661410,2841000,3154830,])
array_1_name = "Rain in Columbus"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is pure awesomeness!


Correlation ID: 4748 · Black Variable ID: 25243 · Red Variable ID: 26019
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0