about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,058 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Cleveland and the second variable is NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2023, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As air pollution in Cleveland increased, it created a unique atmospheric environment that closely mimicked certain conditions found on distant planets, prompting NASA to allocate more funds for research and exploration. The smog and particulate matter inadvertently provided NASA with a cost-effective way to conduct otherworldly tests and experiments, leading to new insights and discoveries. Ultimately, the correlation between Cleveland's air pollution and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget can be attributed to the unexpected role of pollution as a celestial simulation facilitator.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of the Cleveland skyline at night, with a clear, starry sky above it. The city's skyline is surrounded by clean air, with the stars twinkling brightly in the background. Also, include a simple chart showing NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget rising quickly alongside the clearer skies, indicating an increase in funding for space exploration. The scene should evoke a sense of wonder and progress in space exploration. 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: Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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: Cyberpunk A scene from Skyrim inspired by bauhaus a funny image you would see on reddit Photorealism
ChatGPT: A scene from Skyrim

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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget, in the following situation: As air pollution in Cleveland decreased, residents could see the stars more clearly, leading to an increase in interest in space and exploration. Ultimately, this led to greater public support for NASA and a boost in its budget allocation. "As Cleveland's skies cleared, so did the path to astronomical funding!". Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In an image, the Cleveland skyline is visible with a clear, starry night sky above it. The city's skyline is surrounded by clean air, and the stars twinkle brightly in the background. Meanwhile, a chart showing NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget is seen rising quickly alongside the clearer skies, indicating an increase in funding for space exploration.

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 scene from Skyrim ] and depicting this scene: In an image, the Cleveland skyline is visible with a clear, starry night sky above it. The city's skyline is surrounded by clean air, and the stars twinkle brightly in the background. Meanwhile, a chart showing NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget is seen rising quickly alongside the clearer skies, indicating an increase in funding for space exploration. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of the Cleveland skyline at night, with a clear, starry sky above it. The city's skyline is surrounded by clean air, with the stars twinkling brightly in the background. Also, include a simple chart showing NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget rising quickly alongside the clearer skies, indicating an increase in funding for space exploration. The scene should evoke a sense of wonder and progress in space exploration.

*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 increases in Air pollution in Cleveland positively influenced NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

The Journal of Irreverent Astro-Ecology

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 researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2023.

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]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Air pollution is a pervasive environmental concern that has far-reaching implications for public health, climate change, and the natural world. Since the Industrial Revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and vehicular emissions has emitted copious amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, creating what has been aptly referred to as a "hazy situation." Despite significant efforts to mitigate this issue, air pollution continues to cloud our skies and jeopardize the well-being of communities worldwide.

But before we dive into this atmospheric abyss, let's take a moment to appreciate the "air-odynamic" and "smog-nificant" impact of our planet's polluted atmosphere on our federally funded space explorations.

Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been the subject of discussions and debates regarding its funding allocation within the broader context of the US Federal Budget. With its eye on the "astars," NASA seeks to explore the cosmos and expand humanity's understanding of the universe, space exploration continuously needs to "rocket" funds to accomplish these lofty goals.

Despite the gravity of these issues, the connection between the air quality in specific regions, such as Cleveland, and NASA's budget has been an underexplored topic. It's as if these two subjects have been "air-locked" in separate compartments, never to be united by the bonds of research and analysis until now.

In the quest to better comprehend this "atmos-fear," this study aims to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. By examining these "breathtaking" and "out-of-this-world" phenomena, we aspire to showcase the unforeseen ties that bind Earth-bound struggles and cosmic pursuits.

As we embark on this celestial odyssey, the findings of this study promise to enlighten us about the interplay between terrestrial environmental factors and celestial financial decisions, culminating in a deeper understanding of the intricate "astrol-nomic" dynamics at play.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Air pollution is a pervasive environmental concern that has far-reaching implications for public health, climate change, and the natural world. Since the Industrial Revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and vehicular emissions has emitted copious amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, creating what has been aptly referred to as a "hazy situation." Despite significant efforts to mitigate this issue, air pollution continues to cloud our skies and jeopardize the well-being of communities worldwide.

But before we dive into this atmospheric abyss, let's take a moment to appreciate the "air-odynamic" and "smog-nificant" impact of our planet's polluted atmosphere on our federally funded space explorations.
Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been the subject of discussions and debates regarding its funding allocation within the broader context of the US Federal Budget. With its eye on the "astars," NASA seeks to explore the cosmos and expand humanity's understanding of the universe, space exploration continuously needs to "rocket" funds to accomplish these lofty goals.
Despite the gravity of these issues, the connection between the air quality in specific regions, such as Cleveland, and NASA's budget has been an underexplored topic. It's as if these two subjects have been "air-locked" in separate compartments, never to be united by the bonds of research and analysis until now.
In the quest to better comprehend this "atmos-fear," this study aims to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. By examining these "breathtaking" and "out-of-this-world" phenomena, we aspire to showcase the unforeseen ties that bind Earth-bound struggles and cosmic pursuits.
As we embark on this celestial odyssey, the findings of this study promise to enlighten us about the interplay between terrestrial environmental factors and celestial financial decisions, culminating in a deeper understanding of the intricate "astrol-nomic" dynamics at play.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between air pollution in specific regions and federal budget allocations has intrigued economists, environmentalists, and space enthusiasts alike. Smith et al. (2010) explored the correlation between air quality in urban areas and government spending, but their focus on celestial budgets was rather "up in the air." Nonetheless, their work laid a foundation for considering the impact of local environmental conditions on federal financial decisions, "air-ing" out the complexities of budgeting analyses.

Speaking of "air-ing," did you hear about the atmospheric scientist who got into an argument with a physicist? It was quite an "air-ial" debate.

Doe and Jones' (2014) comprehensive analysis of NASA's budgetary trends highlighted the fluctuations in funding over the years. However, their study failed to account for the atmospheric "hue" over Cleveland and its potential influence on intergalactic expenditures. This oversight may have left readers feeling as deflated as a punctured space shuttle tire.

Now, turning to the world of non-fiction, "Astro-Economics: Exploring the Cosmic Impacts on Terrestrial Finances" by John Moneybags and Jane Greenbacks provides a thought-provoking perspective on the intertwining of astronomical endeavors with earthly economic decisions. This book adds a touch of humor to the cosmic economy, reminding us that even the most serious subjects can benefit from a sprinkling of interstellar wit.

On a lighter note, "The Airborne Astronaut" by Stella Stargazer is a fictional account of a NASA astronaut embarking on a mission to analyze Earth's atmosphere from an otherworldly perspective. Though this book is a work of fiction, its imaginative exploration of the celestial and terrestrial realms adds an ethereal touch to the scholarly discourse on air pollution and space exploration funding.

In the realm of television, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" and "Dirty Jobs" might seem like an odd pair. Yet, these shows, with their focus on the wonders of the universe and the less glamorous aspects of earthbound labor, offer a unique vantage point from which to contemplate the connection between NASA's budget and the air quality in Cleveland. It's as if they're the odd couple of the airwaves, bringing a "celestial" spark to the mundane concerns of polluted atmospheres and federal funding.

Did you hear about the astronaut who stepped in gum on the moon? He got stuck in orbit.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org . You used data from 1980 to 2023

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]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Air pollution is a pervasive environmental concern that has far-reaching implications for public health, climate change, and the natural world. Since the Industrial Revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and vehicular emissions has emitted copious amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, creating what has been aptly referred to as a "hazy situation." Despite significant efforts to mitigate this issue, air pollution continues to cloud our skies and jeopardize the well-being of communities worldwide.

But before we dive into this atmospheric abyss, let's take a moment to appreciate the "air-odynamic" and "smog-nificant" impact of our planet's polluted atmosphere on our federally funded space explorations.
Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been the subject of discussions and debates regarding its funding allocation within the broader context of the US Federal Budget. With its eye on the "astars," NASA seeks to explore the cosmos and expand humanity's understanding of the universe, space exploration continuously needs to "rocket" funds to accomplish these lofty goals.
Despite the gravity of these issues, the connection between the air quality in specific regions, such as Cleveland, and NASA's budget has been an underexplored topic. It's as if these two subjects have been "air-locked" in separate compartments, never to be united by the bonds of research and analysis until now.
In the quest to better comprehend this "atmos-fear," this study aims to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. By examining these "breathtaking" and "out-of-this-world" phenomena, we aspire to showcase the unforeseen ties that bind Earth-bound struggles and cosmic pursuits.
As we embark on this celestial odyssey, the findings of this study promise to enlighten us about the interplay between terrestrial environmental factors and celestial financial decisions, culminating in a deeper understanding of the intricate "astrol-nomic" dynamics at play.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the celestial dance between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budgetary allocations, we embarked on a methodological journey that was as complex and enigmatic as the cosmic forces we sought to explore. Our primary data sources included the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality monitoring data and NASA's budgetary information from the fiscal years 1980 to 2023. Armed with spreadsheets more extensive than a constellation, we meticulously collated these disparate datasets with the precision of a spacecraft's trajectory correction maneuver.

We employed a novel approach, affectionately dubbed the "Airborne Astronomical Alignment Analysis," which involved cross-referencing the concentrations of pollutants in Cleveland's atmosphere with the fluctuations in NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Like astronauts navigating the cosmos, we steered through the vast sea of data points, parsing patterns and correlations with the rigor of a seasoned stargazer.

The atmospheric data, including levels of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone, were comprehensively scrubbed and scrutinized to extract meaningful insights. Meanwhile, NASA's budgetary allocations were dissected with the precision of a Martian rover, accounting for budgetary trends, funding diversions, and any cosmic anomalies that might have influenced the results.

Throughout the data analysis process, we implemented sophisticated statistical techniques, including Pearson correlation coefficients, regression analyses, and time series modeling. This rigorous statistical "spacewalk" allowed us to discern the celestial signals hidden within the terrestrial chatter, revealing the tantalizing relationship that underpins air quality in Cleveland and NASA's budgetary fortunes.

At regular intervals, we took a moment to appreciate the correlation coefficients, reminding ourselves that numbers have a special place in the "Milky Way" of scientific inquiry.

To ensure the robustness of our findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses and considered potential confounding variables, such as economic recessions, geopolitical events, and the occasional asteroid threat, in our quest to illuminate the connection between earthly air quality and celestial financial investments.

After a series of orbital calculations and data triangulation, we arrived at the tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.6866398, with a p-value of less than 0.01, underscoring the remarkable relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. This statistical "Eureka moment" propelled us toward the event horizon of discovery, where the seemingly disparate realms of terrestrial pollution and celestial exploration converged in a celestial tango of causality.

We affectionately referred to our correlation coefficient as the "Astro-Cleve Coefficient," acknowledging its status as a cosmic linchpin connecting two seemingly unrelated phenomena. The finding served as a beacon guiding the study's conclusion, illuminating the unexplored nebulae of interdisciplinary connection between environmental concerns and space exploration aspirations.

As we concluded this methodological odyssey, we couldn't help but muse, "When studying celestial correlations, it's important to keep your feet on the ground and your head in the clouds." Indeed, this sentiment encapsulates our unwavering commitment to illuminating the celestial ballet between earthly air quality and NASA's budget, enriching our understanding of the interconnected "atmo-nomical" dynamics that shape our world and the cosmos beyond.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org .

For the time period 1980 to 2023, you found a correlation 0.6866398, r-squared of 0.4714742, 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]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Air pollution is a pervasive environmental concern that has far-reaching implications for public health, climate change, and the natural world. Since the Industrial Revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and vehicular emissions has emitted copious amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, creating what has been aptly referred to as a "hazy situation." Despite significant efforts to mitigate this issue, air pollution continues to cloud our skies and jeopardize the well-being of communities worldwide.

But before we dive into this atmospheric abyss, let's take a moment to appreciate the "air-odynamic" and "smog-nificant" impact of our planet's polluted atmosphere on our federally funded space explorations.
Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been the subject of discussions and debates regarding its funding allocation within the broader context of the US Federal Budget. With its eye on the "astars," NASA seeks to explore the cosmos and expand humanity's understanding of the universe, space exploration continuously needs to "rocket" funds to accomplish these lofty goals.
Despite the gravity of these issues, the connection between the air quality in specific regions, such as Cleveland, and NASA's budget has been an underexplored topic. It's as if these two subjects have been "air-locked" in separate compartments, never to be united by the bonds of research and analysis until now.
In the quest to better comprehend this "atmos-fear," this study aims to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. By examining these "breathtaking" and "out-of-this-world" phenomena, we aspire to showcase the unforeseen ties that bind Earth-bound struggles and cosmic pursuits.
As we embark on this celestial odyssey, the findings of this study promise to enlighten us about the interplay between terrestrial environmental factors and celestial financial decisions, culminating in a deeper understanding of the intricate "astrol-nomic" dynamics at play.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget for the time period of 1980 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and an r-squared of 0.4714742 indicated a relationship that is not to be "smogotten." The p-value of less than 0.01 further emphasizes the robustness of this connection, making it more than just a "hazy" association.

Fig. 1 shows the scatterplot depicting the formidable correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget. As the data points form a clear trend, one might even say that the relationship is as solid as a "rock-et."

This unexpected link between the terrestrial issue of air quality and the extraterrestrial pursuits of space exploration invites us to ponder the broader implications of these findings. It's almost as if the cosmic energies above and the pollutants below are engaged in an "atmos"-pheric tango of interconnectedness.

The "air-ity" of this correlation prompts us to consider how the allocation of funds to NASA is influenced by the environmental conditions on our own planet. Could it be that our aspirations for reaching the stars are subtly intertwined with the quality of the air we breathe? This connection is truly "out-of-this-world."

These results have uncovered a compelling association that urges us to look beyond the "air-cover" and recognize the intricate relationships between seemingly disparate domains. In doing so, we not only enhance our understanding of the environmental and astronomical spheres but also gain insight into the broader forces shaping federal budgeting decisions.

This unexpected relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget offers a fresh perspective that transcends atmospheric boundaries and monetary allocations. Who would have thought that the answer to cosmic financing lies in the terrestrial air? It seems that when it comes to federal budgeting, the sky is not the limit after all.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between air pollution in specific regions and federal budget allocations has intrigued economists, environmentalists, and space enthusiasts alike. Smith et al. (2010) explored the correlation between air quality in urban areas and government spending, but their focus on celestial budgets was rather "up in the air." Nonetheless, their work laid a foundation for considering the impact of local environmental conditions on federal financial decisions, "air-ing" out the complexities of budgeting analyses.
Speaking of "air-ing," did you hear about the atmospheric scientist who got into an argument with a physicist? It was quite an "air-ial" debate.
Doe and Jones' (2014) comprehensive analysis of NASA's budgetary trends highlighted the fluctuations in funding over the years. However, their study failed to account for the atmospheric "hue" over Cleveland and its potential influence on intergalactic expenditures. This oversight may have left readers feeling as deflated as a punctured space shuttle tire.
Now, turning to the world of non-fiction, "Astro-Economics: Exploring the Cosmic Impacts on Terrestrial Finances" by John Moneybags and Jane Greenbacks provides a thought-provoking perspective on the intertwining of astronomical endeavors with earthly economic decisions. This book adds a touch of humor to the cosmic economy, reminding us that even the most serious subjects can benefit from a sprinkling of interstellar wit.
On a lighter note, "The Airborne Astronaut" by Stella Stargazer is a fictional account of a NASA astronaut embarking on a mission to analyze Earth's atmosphere from an otherworldly perspective. Though this book is a work of fiction, its imaginative exploration of the celestial and terrestrial realms adds an ethereal touch to the scholarly discourse on air pollution and space exploration funding.
In the realm of television, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" and "Dirty Jobs" might seem like an odd pair. Yet, these shows, with their focus on the wonders of the universe and the less glamorous aspects of earthbound labor, offer a unique vantage point from which to contemplate the connection between NASA's budget and the air quality in Cleveland. It's as if they're the odd couple of the airwaves, bringing a "celestial" spark to the mundane concerns of polluted atmospheres and federal funding.
Did you hear about the astronaut who stepped in gum on the moon? He got stuck in orbit.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget for the time period of 1980 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and an r-squared of 0.4714742 indicated a relationship that is not to be "smogotten." The p-value of less than 0.01 further emphasizes the robustness of this connection, making it more than just a "hazy" association.
Fig. 1 shows the scatterplot depicting the formidable correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget. As the data points form a clear trend, one might even say that the relationship is as solid as a "rock-et."
This unexpected link between the terrestrial issue of air quality and the extraterrestrial pursuits of space exploration invites us to ponder the broader implications of these findings. It's almost as if the cosmic energies above and the pollutants below are engaged in an "atmos"-pheric tango of interconnectedness.
The "air-ity" of this correlation prompts us to consider how the allocation of funds to NASA is influenced by the environmental conditions on our own planet. Could it be that our aspirations for reaching the stars are subtly intertwined with the quality of the air we breathe? This connection is truly "out-of-this-world."
These results have uncovered a compelling association that urges us to look beyond the "air-cover" and recognize the intricate relationships between seemingly disparate domains. In doing so, we not only enhance our understanding of the environmental and astronomical spheres but also gain insight into the broader forces shaping federal budgeting decisions.
This unexpected relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget offers a fresh perspective that transcends atmospheric boundaries and monetary allocations. Who would have thought that the answer to cosmic financing lies in the terrestrial air? It seems that when it comes to federal budgeting, the sky is not the limit after all.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The intriguing correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA, revealed in our study, adds a new dimension to the discourse on federal budgeting. Our findings provide empirical support for prior research that has hinted at the interconnectedness of environmental conditions and fiscal decisions, albeit in a lighthearted manner, much like the "air-ial" debates in the realm of atmospheric science.

The correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 observed in our study echo the "rock-et" solid foundation laid by Smith et al. (2010), whose work on the correlation between air quality in urban areas and government spending "air-d" out the intricacies of budgeting analyses. Similarly, the results further reinforce the potential impact of environmental factors on budgetary decisions, "smogotten" in Doe and Jones' (2014) oversight of Cleveland's atmospheric "hue" on intergalactic expenditures.

The unexpected link between air pollution and NASA's budgetary allocation certainly prompts contemplation of the broader implications of this association. This could lead to a reevaluation of the factors influencing federal budgeting decisions, emphasizing the need to "air" on the side of a comprehensive consideration of environmental influences.

Our study also corroborates the humorous yet thought-provoking insights of "Astro-Economics" by Moneybags and Greenbacks, as it juxtaposes the terrestrial concerns of polluted atmospheres with "out-of-this-world" budgetary allocations for astronomical endeavors. As we navigate this new frontier of research, it becomes apparent that the sky is not the limit when it comes to understanding the forces that shape federal budgeting decisions.

In summary, the unexpected relationship unveiled in our study underlines the need to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries and consider the "atmos"-pheric tango of interconnectedness between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. Our findings challenge us to "orbit" around the idea that environmental conditions on our planet subtly influence our aspirations for space exploration, providing a fresh perspective that transcends atmospheric boundaries and monetary allocations. The interplay between these seemingly disparate domains adds an intriguing layer to the ongoing discourse surrounding federal budgeting and environmental considerations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 Air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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]]
Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.

Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Air pollution is a pervasive environmental concern that has far-reaching implications for public health, climate change, and the natural world. Since the Industrial Revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes, and vehicular emissions has emitted copious amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, creating what has been aptly referred to as a "hazy situation." Despite significant efforts to mitigate this issue, air pollution continues to cloud our skies and jeopardize the well-being of communities worldwide.

But before we dive into this atmospheric abyss, let's take a moment to appreciate the "air-odynamic" and "smog-nificant" impact of our planet's polluted atmosphere on our federally funded space explorations.
Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been the subject of discussions and debates regarding its funding allocation within the broader context of the US Federal Budget. With its eye on the "astars," NASA seeks to explore the cosmos and expand humanity's understanding of the universe, space exploration continuously needs to "rocket" funds to accomplish these lofty goals.
Despite the gravity of these issues, the connection between the air quality in specific regions, such as Cleveland, and NASA's budget has been an underexplored topic. It's as if these two subjects have been "air-locked" in separate compartments, never to be united by the bonds of research and analysis until now.
In the quest to better comprehend this "atmos-fear," this study aims to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. By examining these "breathtaking" and "out-of-this-world" phenomena, we aspire to showcase the unforeseen ties that bind Earth-bound struggles and cosmic pursuits.
As we embark on this celestial odyssey, the findings of this study promise to enlighten us about the interplay between terrestrial environmental factors and celestial financial decisions, culminating in a deeper understanding of the intricate "astrol-nomic" dynamics at play.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget for the time period of 1980 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and an r-squared of 0.4714742 indicated a relationship that is not to be "smogotten." The p-value of less than 0.01 further emphasizes the robustness of this connection, making it more than just a "hazy" association.
Fig. 1 shows the scatterplot depicting the formidable correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget. As the data points form a clear trend, one might even say that the relationship is as solid as a "rock-et."
This unexpected link between the terrestrial issue of air quality and the extraterrestrial pursuits of space exploration invites us to ponder the broader implications of these findings. It's almost as if the cosmic energies above and the pollutants below are engaged in an "atmos"-pheric tango of interconnectedness.
The "air-ity" of this correlation prompts us to consider how the allocation of funds to NASA is influenced by the environmental conditions on our own planet. Could it be that our aspirations for reaching the stars are subtly intertwined with the quality of the air we breathe? This connection is truly "out-of-this-world."
These results have uncovered a compelling association that urges us to look beyond the "air-cover" and recognize the intricate relationships between seemingly disparate domains. In doing so, we not only enhance our understanding of the environmental and astronomical spheres but also gain insight into the broader forces shaping federal budgeting decisions.
This unexpected relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget offers a fresh perspective that transcends atmospheric boundaries and monetary allocations. Who would have thought that the answer to cosmic financing lies in the terrestrial air? It seems that when it comes to federal budgeting, the sky is not the limit after all.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unearthed a surprising and robust correlation between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. This connection, as evidenced by the correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01, points to a significant relationship that is "astronomically" intriguing. It seems that the skies above and the air we breathe below are more intertwined than we ever imagined, highlighting the unforeseen interconnectedness of environmental and astronomical factors.

The implications of these findings are as expansive as the vast universe itself. Could it be that the quality of the air on Earth influences our collective aspirations to explore the cosmos? This unexpected relationship between earthly air pollution and celestial financial allocations certainly adds an "air of mystery" to federal budgeting decisions.

Furthermore, our results encourage us to consider a broader perspective in understanding the forces that shape budgeting decisions. This connection between earthly concerns and cosmic endeavors underscores the complex dynamics at play in federal budget allocations. It's almost as if our research has propelled us into a "cosmic dance" of financial and environmental influences that extend far beyond traditional budgetary considerations.

As we reflect on these findings, it becomes clear that the Earth's atmosphere and the expanse of space above are not as distant from each other as they may seem. This unexpected correlation invites us to contemplate the intricate interplay between the seemingly disparate realms of environmental quality and space exploration funding. It's as if the celestial bodies and terrestrial pollutants are engaging in a "cosmic ballet" of interconnected influences.

In light of these revelatory findings, we assert that further research into the relationship between air pollution in various regions and federal budget allocations for space exploration is not needed. Our study has shed light on this captivating correlation, leaving us with a deeper understanding of the "air-raising" and "otherworldly" dynamics at play in federal budgeting decisions. After all, when it comes to linking air quality and cosmic budgets, we've already reached for the stars. No more research is necessary - this topic is "out of this world!"


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 Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Irreverent Astro-Ecology


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 Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Stellar Air Quality Research Institute


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 Astro-Nomical Pollution: Examining the Relationship Between Air Quality in Cleveland and NASA's Budget with an abstract of The impact of air pollution on human health and the environment has been the subject of extensive research. However, the connection between air pollution in Cleveland and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we set out to fill this gap by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to investigate the intriguing correlation between these seemingly disparate factors.
Applying rigorous statistical analysis, we found a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.6866398 and p < 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2023, indicating a noteworthy relationship between air pollution in Cleveland and the allocation of funds to NASA. This unexpected finding sheds light on the interplay between earthly concerns and celestial pursuits. As we delve into the implications of these results, we invite readers to take a "quantum leap" into considering the far-reaching effects of environmental and astronomical factors on federal budgeting decisions.

ChatGPT:

air pollution, Cleveland, NASA budget, federal budget, correlation analysis, Environmental Protection Agency data, Planetary.org, statistical analysis, relationship between air quality and NASA budget

*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

Air pollution in Cleveland
Detailed data title: Percentage of days 'unhealthy' or worse air quality in Cleveland-Elyria, OH
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Cleveland

NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget
Source: Planetary.org
See what else correlates with NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget

Correlation r = 0.6866398 (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 = 0.4714742 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 47.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Cleveland) over the 44 years from 1980 through 2023.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.7E-7. 0.0000002660293474672219000000
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 0.69 in 2.7E-5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 3,758,984 random variables You don't actually need 3 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 43 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 43 because we have two variables measured over a period of 44 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.

[ 0.49, 0.82 ] 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.
19801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023
Air pollution in Cleveland (Bad air quality days)3.005464.931514.657539.315074.644813.835623.561644.3835612.84154.657532.465758.219182.185794.657535.479455.753424.644813.287675.205486.02742.185796.575347.945212.465750.5464484.657531.095891.369860.8196720.5479451.095891.095893.005460.2739730.273973000000.27322400.5479452.04918
NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget (Percent of Federal Budget)0.840.820.830.850.830.770.750.760.850.960.991.051.011.010.940.880.890.90.860.80.750.760.720.680.660.630.570.580.60.540.550.490.490.490.490.50.490.470.480.480.350.330.410.44




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. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




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([3.00546,4.93151,4.65753,9.31507,4.64481,3.83562,3.56164,4.38356,12.8415,4.65753,2.46575,8.21918,2.18579,4.65753,5.47945,5.75342,4.64481,3.28767,5.20548,6.0274,2.18579,6.57534,7.94521,2.46575,0.546448,4.65753,1.09589,1.36986,0.819672,0.547945,1.09589,1.09589,3.00546,0.273973,0.273973,0,0,0,0,0,0.273224,0,0.547945,2.04918,])
array_2 = np.array([0.84,0.82,0.83,0.85,0.83,0.77,0.75,0.76,0.85,0.96,0.99,1.05,1.01,1.01,0.94,0.88,0.89,0.9,0.86,0.8,0.75,0.76,0.72,0.68,0.66,0.63,0.57,0.58,0.6,0.54,0.55,0.49,0.49,0.49,0.49,0.5,0.49,0.47,0.48,0.48,0.35,0.33,0.41,0.44,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Cleveland"
array_2_name = "NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget"

# 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?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!


Correlation ID: 2058 · Black Variable ID: 20474 · Red Variable ID: 1084
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0