about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,656 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the second variable is Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2016, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

People suddenly realized their homes were so clean that they could see the dirt with more clarity, leading to a surge in bleach shopping. It's a clear case of 'the cleaner the air, the brighter the home interior looks' phenomenon!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Image Generation Prompt: Generate a photo-realistic image depicting a serene neighborhood in Greenwood, South Carolina. The scene should feature clear blue skies overhead and neatly lined streets showcasing charming homes. The air quality should be pristine, with every detail of the homes visible. Inside the homes, residents are shown on their laptops, surrounded by immaculately clean interiors. The sun should filter through the windows, casting a bright light on the gleaming surfaces, showcasing the impact of the clean air on the home interiors. 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 quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. 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 comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Photorealism A photo-realistic image Data cyber art Glitch art
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

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 quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach', in the following situation: People suddenly realized their homes were so clean that they could see the dirt with more clarity, leading to a surge in bleach shopping. It's a clear case of 'the cleaner the air, the brighter the home interior looks' phenomenon!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Greenwood, South Carolina, the clear blue sky stretches above the neatly lined streets. Every nook and cranny of the charming homes is visible as the air quality is pristine. Inside, residents are on their laptops, searching for "where to buy bleach" as they realize that their homes have never looked cleaner. The sun filters through the windows, casting a bright light on every clean surface, showcasing the impact of the clean air on their home interiors.

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 photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In Greenwood, South Carolina, the clear blue sky stretches above the neatly lined streets. Every nook and cranny of the charming homes is visible as the air quality is pristine. Inside, residents are on their laptops, searching for "where to buy bleach" as they realize that their homes have never looked cleaner. The sun filters through the windows, casting a bright light on every clean surface, showcasing the impact of the clean air on their home interiors. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Image Generation Prompt: Generate a photo-realistic image depicting a serene neighborhood in Greenwood, South Carolina. The scene should feature clear blue skies overhead and neatly lined streets showcasing charming homes. The air quality should be pristine, with every detail of the homes visible. Inside the homes, residents are shown on their laptops, surrounded by immaculately clean interiors. The sun should filter through the windows, casting a bright light on the gleaming surfaces, showcasing the impact of the clean air on the home interiors.

*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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina caused where to buy bleach (Google searches for 'where to buy bleach') to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'

The Journal of Ecological Oddities

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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2016.

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]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.


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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Air quality, a topic often shrouded in haze and confusion, has long been a concern for both public health and environmental well-being. At the same time, the widespread availability and myriad uses of bleach have made it a staple in households and businesses alike. Indeed, the humble cleaning agent has a knack for brightening whites and disinfecting surfaces, but could it also hold clues about the air we breathe? The interplay between these two disparate entities presents an intriguing puzzle that warrants closer examination.

Despite the general tendency to overlook the prospect of airborne odyssey, the possibility of a connection between air quality and consumer behavior is an area ripe for investigation. Previous research has delved into the relationship between environmental factors and public health, as well as the impact of search engine queries on economic trends, but the intersection of these domains remains relatively unexplored. Enter Greenwood, South Carolina: a charming locale with a population not only known for its hospitality but potentially for their remarkable search habits as well.

Our study sets out to bridge this gap in the literature by scrutinizing the correlation between air quality in Greenwood and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Armed with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, we aim to shed light on this seemingly curious relationship and determine whether there exists a substantive tie between the state of the air and the quest for this ubiquitous cleaning agent. If nothing else, this project is poised to provide a breath of fresh air in a research landscape often clouded by convention.

The elucidation of this bleach-iful relationship not only holds promise for unveiling a potential causal link but also has broader implications for public health, consumer behavior, and environmental policy. As we embark on this journey of scientific inquiry, we invite readers to accompany us on this venture into the oft-overlooked intersection of air quality and online search behavior. After all, the scientific frontier, much like a fresh load of laundry, may yet yield unexpected and dazzling revelations.


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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Air quality, a topic often shrouded in haze and confusion, has long been a concern for both public health and environmental well-being. At the same time, the widespread availability and myriad uses of bleach have made it a staple in households and businesses alike. Indeed, the humble cleaning agent has a knack for brightening whites and disinfecting surfaces, but could it also hold clues about the air we breathe? The interplay between these two disparate entities presents an intriguing puzzle that warrants closer examination.
Despite the general tendency to overlook the prospect of airborne odyssey, the possibility of a connection between air quality and consumer behavior is an area ripe for investigation. Previous research has delved into the relationship between environmental factors and public health, as well as the impact of search engine queries on economic trends, but the intersection of these domains remains relatively unexplored. Enter Greenwood, South Carolina: a charming locale with a population not only known for its hospitality but potentially for their remarkable search habits as well.
Our study sets out to bridge this gap in the literature by scrutinizing the correlation between air quality in Greenwood and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Armed with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, we aim to shed light on this seemingly curious relationship and determine whether there exists a substantive tie between the state of the air and the quest for this ubiquitous cleaning agent. If nothing else, this project is poised to provide a breath of fresh air in a research landscape often clouded by convention.
The elucidation of this bleach-iful relationship not only holds promise for unveiling a potential causal link but also has broader implications for public health, consumer behavior, and environmental policy. As we embark on this journey of scientific inquiry, we invite readers to accompany us on this venture into the oft-overlooked intersection of air quality and online search behavior. After all, the scientific frontier, much like a fresh load of laundry, may yet yield unexpected and dazzling revelations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their seminal work, Smith et al. (2012) undertook a comprehensive examination of air quality data in various regions of the United States, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors on public health. Their findings underscore the critical interplay between atmospheric conditions and respiratory well-being, provoking a breath of fresh air in the field of public health research. Building on this foundation, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the realm of online search behavior and its implications for consumer trends, offering a compelling glimpse into the link between virtual queries and real-world economic activities.

Turning to the realm of non-fiction literature, the book "Air Pollution and Health" by Black and Blue (2018) provides a thorough exploration of the complex relationship between atmospheric pollutants and human health, shedding light on the far-reaching implications of air quality on societal well-being. Similarly, "The Economics of Clean Air" by Green and White (2013) delves into the economic ramifications of environmental policies, presenting a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits associated with air quality regulations.

In the realm of fiction, novels such as "The Scent of Rain and Lightning" by Nancy Pickard and "The Dust That Falls from Dreams" by Louis de Bernieres offer intriguing musings on the ephemeral nature of environmental phenomena, hinting at the undercurrents of interconnectedness that pervade the natural world.

However, the authors find it pertinent to note that their literature review did not stop at conventional sources. In a bid to uncover all possible leads, the researchers expanded their inquiry to less orthodox repositories of knowledge. Among these unconventional sources, one cannot overlook the countless moments spent perusing the backs of various household cleaning products, including but not limited to bottles of bleach and other disinfectant agents. While the veracity of information contained in these diverse sources may be subject to scrutiny, the levity and occasional quirkiness of such an endeavor provided a welcome respite from the otherwise arduous task of data synthesis.

With this eclectic array of sources at their disposal, the authors endeavored to cast a wide net in their pursuit of understanding the fascinating relationship between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach".


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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2016

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]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Air quality, a topic often shrouded in haze and confusion, has long been a concern for both public health and environmental well-being. At the same time, the widespread availability and myriad uses of bleach have made it a staple in households and businesses alike. Indeed, the humble cleaning agent has a knack for brightening whites and disinfecting surfaces, but could it also hold clues about the air we breathe? The interplay between these two disparate entities presents an intriguing puzzle that warrants closer examination.
Despite the general tendency to overlook the prospect of airborne odyssey, the possibility of a connection between air quality and consumer behavior is an area ripe for investigation. Previous research has delved into the relationship between environmental factors and public health, as well as the impact of search engine queries on economic trends, but the intersection of these domains remains relatively unexplored. Enter Greenwood, South Carolina: a charming locale with a population not only known for its hospitality but potentially for their remarkable search habits as well.
Our study sets out to bridge this gap in the literature by scrutinizing the correlation between air quality in Greenwood and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Armed with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, we aim to shed light on this seemingly curious relationship and determine whether there exists a substantive tie between the state of the air and the quest for this ubiquitous cleaning agent. If nothing else, this project is poised to provide a breath of fresh air in a research landscape often clouded by convention.
The elucidation of this bleach-iful relationship not only holds promise for unveiling a potential causal link but also has broader implications for public health, consumer behavior, and environmental policy. As we embark on this journey of scientific inquiry, we invite readers to accompany us on this venture into the oft-overlooked intersection of air quality and online search behavior. After all, the scientific frontier, much like a fresh load of laundry, may yet yield unexpected and dazzling revelations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the intriguing relationship between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for "where to buy bleach", an assortment of methodological concoctions and statistical alchemy was utilized. Firstly, hourly air quality data, including levels of nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur dioxide, were obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These rigorous measurements served as the building blocks for assessing the atmospheric conditions within the Greenwood area.

Simultaneously, the frequency of searches related to the procurement of bleach was sourced from Google Trends, providing a digital glimpse into the consumer quest for this household staple. By capitalizing on this fountain of search query data, we were able to gauge the flux and flow of public interest in bleach acquisition, much like the ebb and flow of tide towards a freshly bleached shore.

Utilizing this wealth of information, a correlation analysis akin to a molecular dance was performed, seeking to uncover any hidden bond between air quality and the quest for bleach. The Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to ascertain the strength and direction of the association, akin to deciphering whether two chemical elements are inclined to create a stable compound (if statistical significance permits). Additionally, a time-series analysis was invoked to discern any temporal patterns that might reveal the cyclical nuances of this air-quality-to-bleach-seeking dynamic.

Furthermore, to account for potential confounding variables, the methodology incorporated a spectral analysis of other cleaning-related queries, such as "best cleaning products" and "home disinfectants". This allowed us to ascertain whether the association with "where to buy bleach" held its ground in the face of alternative cleaning agents, not unlike determining the unique contribution of a specific reactant in a complex chemical reaction.

Finally, to ascertain the robustness of our findings, a series of sensitivity analyses were conducted, ensuring that the observed relationship between air quality and the bleach-related searches wasn't just a fleeting apparition in the statistical fog.

In summary, this fusion of data from the EPA and Google Trends allowed us to unravel the coiled mystery of air quality and bleach-seeking behavior with as much scientific rigor as a well-controlled lab experiment, ultimately unearthing a veritable mine of statistical gems and a wealth of empirical insight.


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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2016, you found a correlation 0.9121192, r-squared of 0.8319615, 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]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Air quality, a topic often shrouded in haze and confusion, has long been a concern for both public health and environmental well-being. At the same time, the widespread availability and myriad uses of bleach have made it a staple in households and businesses alike. Indeed, the humble cleaning agent has a knack for brightening whites and disinfecting surfaces, but could it also hold clues about the air we breathe? The interplay between these two disparate entities presents an intriguing puzzle that warrants closer examination.
Despite the general tendency to overlook the prospect of airborne odyssey, the possibility of a connection between air quality and consumer behavior is an area ripe for investigation. Previous research has delved into the relationship between environmental factors and public health, as well as the impact of search engine queries on economic trends, but the intersection of these domains remains relatively unexplored. Enter Greenwood, South Carolina: a charming locale with a population not only known for its hospitality but potentially for their remarkable search habits as well.
Our study sets out to bridge this gap in the literature by scrutinizing the correlation between air quality in Greenwood and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Armed with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, we aim to shed light on this seemingly curious relationship and determine whether there exists a substantive tie between the state of the air and the quest for this ubiquitous cleaning agent. If nothing else, this project is poised to provide a breath of fresh air in a research landscape often clouded by convention.
The elucidation of this bleach-iful relationship not only holds promise for unveiling a potential causal link but also has broader implications for public health, consumer behavior, and environmental policy. As we embark on this journey of scientific inquiry, we invite readers to accompany us on this venture into the oft-overlooked intersection of air quality and online search behavior. After all, the scientific frontier, much like a fresh load of laundry, may yet yield unexpected and dazzling revelations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The investigation into the connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for "where to buy bleach" yielded some remarkably illuminating results. We performed a thorough analysis of the data collected from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, and the output certainly did not leave us feeling bleached of enthusiasm.

The correlation coefficient between air quality and searches for bleach, as indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient, was found to be 0.9121192. This suggests a strong positive relationship between the two variables. Additionally, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) was calculated to be 0.8319615, indicating that approximately 83.2% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for bleach can be explained by changes in air quality. It is indeed rare to witness such a high degree of relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena, but it appears that the air in Greenwood may not be as clear-cut as one might expect.

Furthermore, our findings were bolstered by a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is not merely a result of chance. In other words, the likelihood of obtaining such a strong correlation purely by random fluctuation is about as likely as a pair of white socks emerging from the laundry entirely unscathed by a rogue red garment.

Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 1, the scatterplot vividly depicts the strong positive relationship between air quality and Google searches for "where to buy bleach". The data points seem to align as neatly as newly bleached linens, further emphasizing the robustness of the observed association.

While the conundrum of causation versus correlation remains unresolved, these findings may prompt further inquiries into the intricate dance between air quality and consumer behavior. The implications of this intriguing linkage may indeed open up a Pandora's box, or perhaps a Pandora bleach bottle, of thought-provoking questions.

In closing, the unexpected connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the pursuit of bleach-laden solutions presents an engaging avenue for future exploration. Perhaps it's time to clear the air and peer into the unforeseen connections that permeate the scientific landscape, after all, the truth may just be hiding in the laundry hamper of curiosity.


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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their seminal work, Smith et al. (2012) undertook a comprehensive examination of air quality data in various regions of the United States, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors on public health. Their findings underscore the critical interplay between atmospheric conditions and respiratory well-being, provoking a breath of fresh air in the field of public health research. Building on this foundation, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the realm of online search behavior and its implications for consumer trends, offering a compelling glimpse into the link between virtual queries and real-world economic activities.
Turning to the realm of non-fiction literature, the book "Air Pollution and Health" by Black and Blue (2018) provides a thorough exploration of the complex relationship between atmospheric pollutants and human health, shedding light on the far-reaching implications of air quality on societal well-being. Similarly, "The Economics of Clean Air" by Green and White (2013) delves into the economic ramifications of environmental policies, presenting a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits associated with air quality regulations.
In the realm of fiction, novels such as "The Scent of Rain and Lightning" by Nancy Pickard and "The Dust That Falls from Dreams" by Louis de Bernieres offer intriguing musings on the ephemeral nature of environmental phenomena, hinting at the undercurrents of interconnectedness that pervade the natural world.
However, the authors find it pertinent to note that their literature review did not stop at conventional sources. In a bid to uncover all possible leads, the researchers expanded their inquiry to less orthodox repositories of knowledge. Among these unconventional sources, one cannot overlook the countless moments spent perusing the backs of various household cleaning products, including but not limited to bottles of bleach and other disinfectant agents. While the veracity of information contained in these diverse sources may be subject to scrutiny, the levity and occasional quirkiness of such an endeavor provided a welcome respite from the otherwise arduous task of data synthesis.
With this eclectic array of sources at their disposal, the authors endeavored to cast a wide net in their pursuit of understanding the fascinating relationship between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach".

[[RESULTS]]
The investigation into the connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for "where to buy bleach" yielded some remarkably illuminating results. We performed a thorough analysis of the data collected from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, and the output certainly did not leave us feeling bleached of enthusiasm.
The correlation coefficient between air quality and searches for bleach, as indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient, was found to be 0.9121192. This suggests a strong positive relationship between the two variables. Additionally, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) was calculated to be 0.8319615, indicating that approximately 83.2% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for bleach can be explained by changes in air quality. It is indeed rare to witness such a high degree of relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena, but it appears that the air in Greenwood may not be as clear-cut as one might expect.
Furthermore, our findings were bolstered by a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is not merely a result of chance. In other words, the likelihood of obtaining such a strong correlation purely by random fluctuation is about as likely as a pair of white socks emerging from the laundry entirely unscathed by a rogue red garment.
Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 1, the scatterplot vividly depicts the strong positive relationship between air quality and Google searches for "where to buy bleach". The data points seem to align as neatly as newly bleached linens, further emphasizing the robustness of the observed association.
While the conundrum of causation versus correlation remains unresolved, these findings may prompt further inquiries into the intricate dance between air quality and consumer behavior. The implications of this intriguing linkage may indeed open up a Pandora's box, or perhaps a Pandora bleach bottle, of thought-provoking questions.
In closing, the unexpected connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the pursuit of bleach-laden solutions presents an engaging avenue for future exploration. Perhaps it's time to clear the air and peer into the unforeseen connections that permeate the scientific landscape, after all, the truth may just be hiding in the laundry hamper of curiosity.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our investigation into the correlation between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for "where to buy bleach" have unveiled an intriguing relationship that is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Our findings have lent further credence to the notion that the air we breathe may indeed have a direct impact on our behavioral patterns, even if that behavior is as unconventional as seeking out copious quantities of bleach.

The strong positive correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 observed in our study aligns with prior research by Smith et al. (2012) and Doe and Jones (2015) which underscored the intricate interplay between environmental factors and consumer behavior. Indeed, it would seem that the residents of Greenwood are not merely engaging in virtual window shopping for bleach as an idle pastime, but rather, may be responding to the subtle cues emanating from their atmospheric surroundings. This uniquely "bleachy" response to air quality adds a new facet to the literature on environmental influences on consumer trends, akin to discovering an unexpected spot of mildew on otherwise pristine data.

The statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 serves as a firm confirmation of the robustness of the observed correlation. This finding echoes the resounding clarity of a freshly cleaned laboratory beaker and underscores the unlikelihood of our results being a mere statistical fluke.

However, it is critical to exercise caution before jumping to conclusions about causation. While it may be tempting to surmise that poor air quality drives an upsurge in bleach-related inquiries, it is equally plausible that heightened consumer interest in bleach could influence subsequent air quality through increased usage. This nifty little chicken-and-egg scenario reminds us that untangling the convoluted web of causation and correlation can be as knotty as a particularly stubborn knot in a string of cleaning supplies.

Nonetheless, the unexpected connection between air quality and the pursuit of bleach-laden solutions presents a fascinating avenue for future exploration. As we ponder the potential implications of our findings, it may be pertinent to adopt a proverbial "clean slate" approach to understanding the multifaceted relationship between environmental factors and consumer behavior. After all, the truth often has a way of weaving itself into unexpected corners of inquiry, much like that elusive pair of socks that always seems to vanish in the laundry.

In conclusion, the association between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the proclivity for seeking out bleach may appear to be a somewhat unconventional avenue of scientific inquiry, but it is precisely this element of surprise that lends credence to the plenitude of possibilities lurking within the realm of research. It is in the unexpected intersections of seemingly disparate phenomena that the true richness of science and statistics comes to fruition, not unlike discovering a hidden gem in a pile of statistical rubble.


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 Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
"Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Air quality, a topic often shrouded in haze and confusion, has long been a concern for both public health and environmental well-being. At the same time, the widespread availability and myriad uses of bleach have made it a staple in households and businesses alike. Indeed, the humble cleaning agent has a knack for brightening whites and disinfecting surfaces, but could it also hold clues about the air we breathe? The interplay between these two disparate entities presents an intriguing puzzle that warrants closer examination.
Despite the general tendency to overlook the prospect of airborne odyssey, the possibility of a connection between air quality and consumer behavior is an area ripe for investigation. Previous research has delved into the relationship between environmental factors and public health, as well as the impact of search engine queries on economic trends, but the intersection of these domains remains relatively unexplored. Enter Greenwood, South Carolina: a charming locale with a population not only known for its hospitality but potentially for their remarkable search habits as well.
Our study sets out to bridge this gap in the literature by scrutinizing the correlation between air quality in Greenwood and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Armed with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, we aim to shed light on this seemingly curious relationship and determine whether there exists a substantive tie between the state of the air and the quest for this ubiquitous cleaning agent. If nothing else, this project is poised to provide a breath of fresh air in a research landscape often clouded by convention.
The elucidation of this bleach-iful relationship not only holds promise for unveiling a potential causal link but also has broader implications for public health, consumer behavior, and environmental policy. As we embark on this journey of scientific inquiry, we invite readers to accompany us on this venture into the oft-overlooked intersection of air quality and online search behavior. After all, the scientific frontier, much like a fresh load of laundry, may yet yield unexpected and dazzling revelations.

[[RESULTS]]
The investigation into the connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for "where to buy bleach" yielded some remarkably illuminating results. We performed a thorough analysis of the data collected from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, and the output certainly did not leave us feeling bleached of enthusiasm.
The correlation coefficient between air quality and searches for bleach, as indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient, was found to be 0.9121192. This suggests a strong positive relationship between the two variables. Additionally, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) was calculated to be 0.8319615, indicating that approximately 83.2% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for bleach can be explained by changes in air quality. It is indeed rare to witness such a high degree of relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena, but it appears that the air in Greenwood may not be as clear-cut as one might expect.
Furthermore, our findings were bolstered by a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is not merely a result of chance. In other words, the likelihood of obtaining such a strong correlation purely by random fluctuation is about as likely as a pair of white socks emerging from the laundry entirely unscathed by a rogue red garment.
Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 1, the scatterplot vividly depicts the strong positive relationship between air quality and Google searches for "where to buy bleach". The data points seem to align as neatly as newly bleached linens, further emphasizing the robustness of the observed association.
While the conundrum of causation versus correlation remains unresolved, these findings may prompt further inquiries into the intricate dance between air quality and consumer behavior. The implications of this intriguing linkage may indeed open up a Pandora's box, or perhaps a Pandora bleach bottle, of thought-provoking questions.
In closing, the unexpected connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the pursuit of bleach-laden solutions presents an engaging avenue for future exploration. Perhaps it's time to clear the air and peer into the unforeseen connections that permeate the scientific landscape, after all, the truth may just be hiding in the laundry hamper of curiosity.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the apparent affinity between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google searches for "where to buy bleach" has unearthed some fascinating correlations. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 indicates a connection as strong as the disinfecting power of bleach on a stubborn stain. It appears that the air quality in this charming locale may have prompted its inhabitants to embark on virtual quests for that trusty household cleaner.

While the pursuit of causation amidst this correlation remains akin to searching for a single speck of dust in a sunlit room, our findings undeniably pique curiosity. Whether the residents of Greenwood are donning their detective hats to seek out bleach due to air quality concerns or if the air itself is befouled by copious cleaning remains a mystery as enigmatic as a disappearing sock in the laundry.

Nonetheless, the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 assures us that this relationship is as genuine as a clean slate. The scatterplot, akin to a meticulously folded load of laundry, vividly illustrates the alignment between air quality and the pursuit of bleach.

This unexpected nexus between air quality and the quest for bleach does indeed beckon further exploration, but at this juncture, we are inclined to assert that no further research is needed. For now, let us relish in the sheer hilarity of the unexpected connection between air quality and the pursuit of bleach and leave the statistical laundry to air out on its own.


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 Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Oddities


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 Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for the Advancement of Unusual Air Quality Studies


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 Clearing the Air: The Bleach-iful Relationship Between Air Quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and Google Searches for 'Where to Buy Bleach' with an abstract of In this study, we investigate the intriguing connection between air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina and the frequency of Google searches for "where to buy bleach". Leveraging data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, we uncover a striking correlation between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our findings reveal a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9121192 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 during the period of 2004 to 2016. The implications of this association may not be as whitewashed as one might initially assume. While causation cannot be inferred from correlation alone, the results raise the question: are the residents of Greenwood turning to bleach in response to the air quality, or is the air quality itself a consequence of cleaning-related activities? This unexpected relationship leaves plenty of room for further speculation and, dare we say, cleaning up the conjecture.

ChatGPT:

greenwood south carolina air quality, google searches for bleach in greenwood, environmental protection agency data, google trends data, air quality and consumer behavior, correlation between air quality and cleaning products, cleaning product usage and air quality, bleach sales and air quality, causation vs correlation in environmental data, relationship between cleaning products and environmental health

*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 quality in Greenwood, South Carolina
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with good or moderate air quality in Greenwood, SC
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina

Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'where to buy bleach' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'

Correlation r = 0.9121192 (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 = 0.8319615 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 83.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'where to buy bleach') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina) over the 13 years from 2004 through 2016.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.4E-5. 0.0000139490435017255450000000
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 0.91 in 0.0014% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 71,690 random variables You don't actually need 71 thousand 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 12 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 12 because we have two variables measured over a period of 13 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.

[ 0.73, 0.97 ] 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.
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016
Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina (Good air quality)0.9694660.9393940.943820.9160840.9736841110.9952611111
Google searches for 'where to buy bleach' (Rel. search volume)17.333310.08339.33333918.416725.416735.333332.583336.666732.333330.2531.416725.3333




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([0.969466,0.939394,0.94382,0.916084,0.973684,1,1,1,0.995261,1,1,1,1,])
array_2 = np.array([17.3333,10.0833,9.33333,9,18.4167,25.4167,35.3333,32.5833,36.6667,32.3333,30.25,31.4167,25.3333,])
array_1_name = "Air quality in Greenwood, South Carolina"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'where to buy bleach'"

# 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: 4656 · Black Variable ID: 22313 · Red Variable ID: 1366
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0