about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,700 · 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 Phoenix 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 the air quality in Phoenix improved, the citizens could see the sky more clearly. With their newfound fascination for the cosmos, there was a surge in local interest in space exploration. This led to a campaign for increased funding for NASA, ultimately influencing the national budget allocation. In other words, cleaner air in Phoenix literally helped NASA's funding to skyrocket!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] of Phoenix, Arizona, with the city engulfed in a thick haze of smog. Against this backdrop, a towering NASA rocket stands prominently, gleaming under the sunlight. As the rocket takes off, a striking contrast becomes evident as it leaves behind a trail of clear, pristine air. This visual represents the technological innovation aimed at combating pollution. Nearby, a digital display showcases the percentage of the US Federal Budget allocated to NASA's space exploration visibly increasing, highlighting the shifting priorities in budget allocations. 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 Phoenix 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: A photo-realistic image a funny image you would see on reddit Concept art A scene from Skyrim 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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget, in the following situation: Because the smog in Phoenix was so thick, NASA had to spend more money developing rocket technology to cut through the pollution and reach the stars. The increased budget for NASA caused a shift in the overall federal budget, leading to changes in the percentage allotted to space exploration. It turns out, the sky's the limit when it comes to budget allocations!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Phoenix, the air quality is hazy, with thick smog hanging over the city. Despite this, a gleaming NASA rocket stands tall, ready to launch into the sky. As it takes off, it leaves a trail of clean, clear air in its wake, symbolizing the innovative technology developed to cut through the pollution. Meanwhile, on a nearby screen, the percentage of the US Federal Budget dedicated to NASA's space exploration visibly increases, reflecting the shift in budget allocations resulting from the increased focus on reaching the stars.

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 Phoenix, the air quality is hazy, with thick smog hanging over the city. Despite this, a gleaming NASA rocket stands tall, ready to launch into the sky. As it takes off, it leaves a trail of clean, clear air in its wake, symbolizing the innovative technology developed to cut through the pollution. Meanwhile, on a nearby screen, the percentage of the US Federal Budget dedicated to NASA's space exploration visibly increases, reflecting the shift in budget allocations resulting from the increased focus on reaching the stars. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] of Phoenix, Arizona, with the city engulfed in a thick haze of smog. Against this backdrop, a towering NASA rocket stands prominently, gleaming under the sunlight. As the rocket takes off, a striking contrast becomes evident as it leaves behind a trail of clear, pristine air. This visual represents the technological innovation aimed at combating pollution. Nearby, a digital display showcases the percentage of the US Federal Budget allocated to NASA's space exploration visibly increasing, highlighting the shifting priorities in budget allocations.

*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 quality in Phoenix positively influenced NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

The Journal of Aeronautical Atmosphere Analysis

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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 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]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.


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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the intersection of environmental factors and government budget allocations. This study focuses on a particularly peculiar pairing – the relationship between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. While this connection may seem as improbable as a desert oasis, the potential impact of these findings reaches far beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon State.

Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is no stranger to air quality challenges, with its combination of geographical and meteorological factors creating a microcosm for environmental intrigue. On the other hand, NASA's budget as a proportion of the US Federal Budget epitomizes the stratospheric heights of government expenditure, addressing cosmic questions with terrestrial implications.

As we embark on this analytical odyssey, we aim to bring an air of lightheartedness to the often gravity-defying world of statistical inquiry. By scrutinizing the data from 1980 to 2023, we endeavor to unravel the tangled web of causality that may or may not exist between these seemingly disparate domains. Pouring over the voluminous datasets with the diligence of an astronaut preparing for a spacewalk, we remain ever aware that correlation does not imply causation, yet the unexpected connections we uncover may leave even the most seasoned researcher marveling at the cosmic dance of variables.

Our journey begins with the expected skepticism of any correlation that appears more coincidental than consequential. However, as we dive deeper into the numerical abyss, we anticipate that our results will not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two at the seemingly whimsical nature of statistical relationships. So, fellow explorers of the empirical realm, hold on to your data sets - this voyage may just take us to infinity and beyond the traditional boundaries of academic inquiry.


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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. 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]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the intersection of environmental factors and government budget allocations. This study focuses on a particularly peculiar pairing – the relationship between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. While this connection may seem as improbable as a desert oasis, the potential impact of these findings reaches far beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon State.
Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is no stranger to air quality challenges, with its combination of geographical and meteorological factors creating a microcosm for environmental intrigue. On the other hand, NASA's budget as a proportion of the US Federal Budget epitomizes the stratospheric heights of government expenditure, addressing cosmic questions with terrestrial implications.
As we embark on this analytical odyssey, we aim to bring an air of lightheartedness to the often gravity-defying world of statistical inquiry. By scrutinizing the data from 1980 to 2023, we endeavor to unravel the tangled web of causality that may or may not exist between these seemingly disparate domains. Pouring over the voluminous datasets with the diligence of an astronaut preparing for a spacewalk, we remain ever aware that correlation does not imply causation, yet the unexpected connections we uncover may leave even the most seasoned researcher marveling at the cosmic dance of variables.
Our journey begins with the expected skepticism of any correlation that appears more coincidental than consequential. However, as we dive deeper into the numerical abyss, we anticipate that our results will not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two at the seemingly whimsical nature of statistical relationships. So, fellow explorers of the empirical realm, hold on to your data sets - this voyage may just take us to infinity and beyond the traditional boundaries of academic inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

One of the pioneering studies in the realm of environmental economics is the work of Smith (2005), who analyzed the impact of air quality on regional economic development. Smith's findings underscore the importance of maintaining clean air for sustainable economic growth, but perhaps overlooked was the potential influence of cosmic funding on such regional concerns. Similarly, Doe (2010) delved into the intricate web of government budgeting and its implications for environmental policy, yet failed to unearth the interstellar implications of such financial allocations.

Expanding beyond the realm of economic tomes, Jones (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis of federal budget trends and their impact on environmental regulations. While Jones' research provided valuable insights into the policy landscape, it neglected to explore the cosmic connections that may exist in the vast expanse of budgetary galaxies. Such oversights leave us yearning for an exploration of the uncharted territories where air quality, cosmic expenditures, and statistical wizardry converge.

Turning to non-fiction works, "The Economics of Clean Air" by William A. Peirce (1992) offers a comprehensive overview of air quality policies and their economic ramifications, but regrettably omits any mention of extraterrestrial implications. In a different vein, "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" by Neil deGrasse Tyson (2017) provides an enthralling journey through the cosmos, instilling a sense of wonder about the astronomical scale of governmental financing, albeit without direct discourse on its impact on earthly air quality.

Venturing into the realm of fiction literature, "The Martian" by Andy Weir (2011) presents a gripping tale of survival on the red planet, captivating readers with the intrigue of space exploration, though without explicit reference to budgetary interplay. Meanwhile, "Dune" by Frank Herbert (1965) offers a sweeping saga set on a desert planet, resonating with the environmental themes of air quality amidst a backdrop of cosmic governance – albeit in a purely fictitious universe.

In a departure from traditional scholarly sources, the authors conducted an unorthodox review of the literature, including perusal of unconventional texts. This unconventional approach involved scrutinizing the back labels of various household products, including shampoo bottles, potato chip bags, and cereal boxes. While yielding no direct insights into the connection between air quality in Phoenix and NASA's budget, this endeavor did impart a newfound appreciation for the unintended humor found in unsuspecting places.

As we navigate through the diverse landscape of scholarly and popular literature, we unearth a tapestry of knowledge that piques our curiosity and tickles our intellectual palate, inspiring us to probe ever deeper into the fusion of terrestrial air quality and celestial funding.


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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the intersection of environmental factors and government budget allocations. This study focuses on a particularly peculiar pairing – the relationship between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. While this connection may seem as improbable as a desert oasis, the potential impact of these findings reaches far beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon State.
Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is no stranger to air quality challenges, with its combination of geographical and meteorological factors creating a microcosm for environmental intrigue. On the other hand, NASA's budget as a proportion of the US Federal Budget epitomizes the stratospheric heights of government expenditure, addressing cosmic questions with terrestrial implications.
As we embark on this analytical odyssey, we aim to bring an air of lightheartedness to the often gravity-defying world of statistical inquiry. By scrutinizing the data from 1980 to 2023, we endeavor to unravel the tangled web of causality that may or may not exist between these seemingly disparate domains. Pouring over the voluminous datasets with the diligence of an astronaut preparing for a spacewalk, we remain ever aware that correlation does not imply causation, yet the unexpected connections we uncover may leave even the most seasoned researcher marveling at the cosmic dance of variables.
Our journey begins with the expected skepticism of any correlation that appears more coincidental than consequential. However, as we dive deeper into the numerical abyss, we anticipate that our results will not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two at the seemingly whimsical nature of statistical relationships. So, fellow explorers of the empirical realm, hold on to your data sets - this voyage may just take us to infinity and beyond the traditional boundaries of academic inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In this study, we employed a thorough and multifaceted approach to unravel the mysterious correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Our data collection methods embraced the digital expanse, tapping into the depths of the internet in a quest for pertinent information. The primary sources of data for air quality indicators were derived from the Environmental Protection Agency, whereas the celestial financial figures were gleaned from the astronomical archives of Planetary.org. The period under scrutiny spanned from 1980 to 2023, encapsulating a time frame replete with developments in both atmospheric scrutiny and cosmic exploration.

To merrily meander through the maze of statistical exploration, our research team embraced an assortment of quantitative techniques. We first conducted a comprehensive data cleaning process, separating the statistical wheat from the chaff with a discerning eye akin to spotting a comet in the night sky. Our data was then subjected to rigorous scrutiny, utilizing advanced statistical software not unlike a spacecraft navigating its trajectory through the cosmic expanse.

Having laid the groundwork for our analysis, we proceeded to calculate the correlation coefficient between air quality in Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the US Federal Budget. Our calculations followed in the footsteps of statistical giants, employing robust methodologies to gauge the strength and direction of the relationship between these seemingly incongruous variables. We sought not just a statistical association, but a cosmic kinship that would captivate the empirical imagination.

Beyond the standard correlation analysis, we also endeavored to perform time series analysis to capture the dynamic interplay between air quality and NASA's budget over the years. This approach allowed us to delve into the temporal nuances of the relationship, akin to sifting through layers of cosmic dust to reveal hidden patterns in the celestial dance of budgetary allocations and atmospheric conditions.

Lastly, we employed a medley of visualizations, from whimsical scatter plots to awe-inspiring trend lines, to portray the entwined fortunes of air quality in Phoenix and the astral aspirations of NASA's budget. These visual aids not only illuminated the statistical narrative with flair but also added a touch of cosmic wonder to our empirical odyssey.

In summary, our methodology combined meticulous data collection, rigorous statistical analysis, and a sprinkle of cosmic curiosity to unearth the empirical tapestry that binds air quality in the desert to the cosmic budgetary allocations. With a spirit of scientific adventure and a twinkle in our analytical eye, we charted a course through the empirical cosmos, aiming not just to uncover statistical associations but to infuse the rigors of research with the boundless whimsy of the cosmic unknown.


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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 0.6438070, r-squared of 0.4144875, 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]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the intersection of environmental factors and government budget allocations. This study focuses on a particularly peculiar pairing – the relationship between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. While this connection may seem as improbable as a desert oasis, the potential impact of these findings reaches far beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon State.
Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is no stranger to air quality challenges, with its combination of geographical and meteorological factors creating a microcosm for environmental intrigue. On the other hand, NASA's budget as a proportion of the US Federal Budget epitomizes the stratospheric heights of government expenditure, addressing cosmic questions with terrestrial implications.
As we embark on this analytical odyssey, we aim to bring an air of lightheartedness to the often gravity-defying world of statistical inquiry. By scrutinizing the data from 1980 to 2023, we endeavor to unravel the tangled web of causality that may or may not exist between these seemingly disparate domains. Pouring over the voluminous datasets with the diligence of an astronaut preparing for a spacewalk, we remain ever aware that correlation does not imply causation, yet the unexpected connections we uncover may leave even the most seasoned researcher marveling at the cosmic dance of variables.
Our journey begins with the expected skepticism of any correlation that appears more coincidental than consequential. However, as we dive deeper into the numerical abyss, we anticipate that our results will not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two at the seemingly whimsical nature of statistical relationships. So, fellow explorers of the empirical realm, hold on to your data sets - this voyage may just take us to infinity and beyond the traditional boundaries of academic inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data from the years 1980 to 2023 revealed a noteworthy correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The correlation coefficient was found to be 0.6438070, indicating a moderately strong positive relationship between these seemingly incongruous variables. Moreover, the r-squared value of 0.4144875 suggests that approximately 41.45% of the variability in NASA's budget allocation can be explained by the fluctuations in air quality in Phoenix. The p-value of less than 0.01 further reaffirms the statistical significance of this association, providing robust evidence for the existence of a link between these disparate domains.

The scatterplot (see Fig. 1) visually displays the strong correlation between air quality in Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The data points form a recognizable upward trend, demonstrating a proportional increase in NASA's budget as air quality in Phoenix improves. This peculiar yet compelling relationship, akin to a cosmic dance of dollars and dust particles, captivates the imagination and challenges conventional wisdom about the determinants of government spending.

It is important to note that while our findings unveil a striking statistical connection between air quality in Arizona and NASA's budget, they do not necessarily imply a causal relationship. After all, causation can be as elusive as a spaceship in outer space, and we must approach these results with the same skepticism as a scientist scrutinizing a UFO sighting. However, the robustness of the statistical evidence, combined with the unexpected nature of this correlation, encourages further curiosity and investigation into the underlying mechanisms that may drive this association.

In essence, our study not only peels back the layers of this statistically significant relationship but also injects a humorous twist into the often solemn landscape of empirical research. The unexpected pairing of air quality and aerospace appropriations serves as a reminder that statistical analysis, much like the universe itself, is full of surprises and delights that defy conventional wisdom.


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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
One of the pioneering studies in the realm of environmental economics is the work of Smith (2005), who analyzed the impact of air quality on regional economic development. Smith's findings underscore the importance of maintaining clean air for sustainable economic growth, but perhaps overlooked was the potential influence of cosmic funding on such regional concerns. Similarly, Doe (2010) delved into the intricate web of government budgeting and its implications for environmental policy, yet failed to unearth the interstellar implications of such financial allocations.
Expanding beyond the realm of economic tomes, Jones (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis of federal budget trends and their impact on environmental regulations. While Jones' research provided valuable insights into the policy landscape, it neglected to explore the cosmic connections that may exist in the vast expanse of budgetary galaxies. Such oversights leave us yearning for an exploration of the uncharted territories where air quality, cosmic expenditures, and statistical wizardry converge.
Turning to non-fiction works, "The Economics of Clean Air" by William A. Peirce (1992) offers a comprehensive overview of air quality policies and their economic ramifications, but regrettably omits any mention of extraterrestrial implications. In a different vein, "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" by Neil deGrasse Tyson (2017) provides an enthralling journey through the cosmos, instilling a sense of wonder about the astronomical scale of governmental financing, albeit without direct discourse on its impact on earthly air quality.
Venturing into the realm of fiction literature, "The Martian" by Andy Weir (2011) presents a gripping tale of survival on the red planet, captivating readers with the intrigue of space exploration, though without explicit reference to budgetary interplay. Meanwhile, "Dune" by Frank Herbert (1965) offers a sweeping saga set on a desert planet, resonating with the environmental themes of air quality amidst a backdrop of cosmic governance – albeit in a purely fictitious universe.
In a departure from traditional scholarly sources, the authors conducted an unorthodox review of the literature, including perusal of unconventional texts. This unconventional approach involved scrutinizing the back labels of various household products, including shampoo bottles, potato chip bags, and cereal boxes. While yielding no direct insights into the connection between air quality in Phoenix and NASA's budget, this endeavor did impart a newfound appreciation for the unintended humor found in unsuspecting places.
As we navigate through the diverse landscape of scholarly and popular literature, we unearth a tapestry of knowledge that piques our curiosity and tickles our intellectual palate, inspiring us to probe ever deeper into the fusion of terrestrial air quality and celestial funding.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from the years 1980 to 2023 revealed a noteworthy correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The correlation coefficient was found to be 0.6438070, indicating a moderately strong positive relationship between these seemingly incongruous variables. Moreover, the r-squared value of 0.4144875 suggests that approximately 41.45% of the variability in NASA's budget allocation can be explained by the fluctuations in air quality in Phoenix. The p-value of less than 0.01 further reaffirms the statistical significance of this association, providing robust evidence for the existence of a link between these disparate domains.
The scatterplot (see Fig. 1) visually displays the strong correlation between air quality in Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The data points form a recognizable upward trend, demonstrating a proportional increase in NASA's budget as air quality in Phoenix improves. This peculiar yet compelling relationship, akin to a cosmic dance of dollars and dust particles, captivates the imagination and challenges conventional wisdom about the determinants of government spending.
It is important to note that while our findings unveil a striking statistical connection between air quality in Arizona and NASA's budget, they do not necessarily imply a causal relationship. After all, causation can be as elusive as a spaceship in outer space, and we must approach these results with the same skepticism as a scientist scrutinizing a UFO sighting. However, the robustness of the statistical evidence, combined with the unexpected nature of this correlation, encourages further curiosity and investigation into the underlying mechanisms that may drive this association.
In essence, our study not only peels back the layers of this statistically significant relationship but also injects a humorous twist into the often solemn landscape of empirical research. The unexpected pairing of air quality and aerospace appropriations serves as a reminder that statistical analysis, much like the universe itself, is full of surprises and delights that defy conventional wisdom.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study support and extend the existing literature, providing robust evidence for the association between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Our results align with the research of Smith (2005), who emphasized the crucial role of clean air in regional economic development. However, what Smith's work failed to illuminate is the cosmic connection – the notion that as the air quality improves, funding reaches for the stars, quite literally. Similarly, the oversight of Doe (2010) in exploring the interstellar implications of financial allocations is rectified by our findings, which reveal the striking statistical link between air quality and space budgeting.

Moreover, our findings serve to bridge the gap left by the oversights of Jones (2017) and Peirce (1992), who, despite delving into the realms of federal budget trends and environmental policies, overlooked the extraterrestrial implications of fiscal allocations. It is evident from our study that the cosmic connections in the budgetary galaxies do have earthly ramifications. In addition, our results intertwine with the amusing musings found in "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" by Neil deGrasse Tyson (2017), providing empirical evidence that governmental financing does indeed have cosmic implications that reach down to our very air quality.

Furthermore, our study complements the adventurous spirit of "The Martian" by Andy Weir (2011) and the environmental themes of "Dune" by Frank Herbert (1965). While these works may seem purely fictional, our findings hint at a cosmic governance that may indeed impact earthly air quality. The unorthodox literature review conducted, including the scrutiny of household product labels, may have seemed like a humorous aside, but it has given us a newfound appreciation for unintended humor found in unsuspecting places, reminding us that the mysteries of the universe often hide in plain sight. Our study adds a twist to the tale, demonstrating that the cosmic dance of dollars and dust particles is not merely a figment of fiction but a statistical reality.

In summary, our findings underscore the statistically significant relationship between air quality in Arizona and NASA's budget, challenging conventional wisdom and injecting a humorous twist into the often solemn landscape of empirical research. This study not only adds a lighthearted touch to statistical analysis but also opens the door to further investigations into the cosmic mechanisms driving this association. As we peer into the statistical stars, we may find that the cosmic and the terrestrial are more intertwined than we ever imagined, much like finding a hidden joke on the back label of a shampoo bottle.


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 Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the intersection of environmental factors and government budget allocations. This study focuses on a particularly peculiar pairing – the relationship between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. While this connection may seem as improbable as a desert oasis, the potential impact of these findings reaches far beyond the boundaries of the Grand Canyon State.
Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is no stranger to air quality challenges, with its combination of geographical and meteorological factors creating a microcosm for environmental intrigue. On the other hand, NASA's budget as a proportion of the US Federal Budget epitomizes the stratospheric heights of government expenditure, addressing cosmic questions with terrestrial implications.
As we embark on this analytical odyssey, we aim to bring an air of lightheartedness to the often gravity-defying world of statistical inquiry. By scrutinizing the data from 1980 to 2023, we endeavor to unravel the tangled web of causality that may or may not exist between these seemingly disparate domains. Pouring over the voluminous datasets with the diligence of an astronaut preparing for a spacewalk, we remain ever aware that correlation does not imply causation, yet the unexpected connections we uncover may leave even the most seasoned researcher marveling at the cosmic dance of variables.
Our journey begins with the expected skepticism of any correlation that appears more coincidental than consequential. However, as we dive deeper into the numerical abyss, we anticipate that our results will not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two at the seemingly whimsical nature of statistical relationships. So, fellow explorers of the empirical realm, hold on to your data sets - this voyage may just take us to infinity and beyond the traditional boundaries of academic inquiry.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from the years 1980 to 2023 revealed a noteworthy correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The correlation coefficient was found to be 0.6438070, indicating a moderately strong positive relationship between these seemingly incongruous variables. Moreover, the r-squared value of 0.4144875 suggests that approximately 41.45% of the variability in NASA's budget allocation can be explained by the fluctuations in air quality in Phoenix. The p-value of less than 0.01 further reaffirms the statistical significance of this association, providing robust evidence for the existence of a link between these disparate domains.
The scatterplot (see Fig. 1) visually displays the strong correlation between air quality in Phoenix and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The data points form a recognizable upward trend, demonstrating a proportional increase in NASA's budget as air quality in Phoenix improves. This peculiar yet compelling relationship, akin to a cosmic dance of dollars and dust particles, captivates the imagination and challenges conventional wisdom about the determinants of government spending.
It is important to note that while our findings unveil a striking statistical connection between air quality in Arizona and NASA's budget, they do not necessarily imply a causal relationship. After all, causation can be as elusive as a spaceship in outer space, and we must approach these results with the same skepticism as a scientist scrutinizing a UFO sighting. However, the robustness of the statistical evidence, combined with the unexpected nature of this correlation, encourages further curiosity and investigation into the underlying mechanisms that may drive this association.
In essence, our study not only peels back the layers of this statistically significant relationship but also injects a humorous twist into the often solemn landscape of empirical research. The unexpected pairing of air quality and aerospace appropriations serves as a reminder that statistical analysis, much like the universe itself, is full of surprises and delights that defy conventional wisdom.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has illuminated a remarkable correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests a connection that is as clear as a mission control directive, creating an association that is more intriguing than a rocket launch on a desert horizon. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 and the statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01) provide compelling evidence for the existence of this unexpected relationship, leaving us more stargazed than a first-time astronomer peering through a telescope.

The scatterplot visually portrays the ascending trajectory of NASA's budget as air quality in Phoenix improves, akin to the ascent of a spacecraft into the boundless expanse of the cosmos. This correlation, while undoubtedly striking, must be approached with the cautious curiosity of an astronaut exploring an uncharted celestial body.

Our findings not only contribute to the scientific understanding of environmental and budgetary dynamics but also infuse the often stoic world of empirical research with a dose of cosmic comedy. As we bid adieu to this research endeavor, we are confident that the statistical connection between air quality in Arizona and NASA's budget has been sufficiently investigated, leaving no crater for doubt or further inquiry. Therefore, it is our firm conclusion that no further research is needed in this area, as the results have launched us into a new realm of statistical discovery that is as captivating as a supernova in the night sky.


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 Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Aeronautical Atmosphere Analysis


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 Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Comical 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 Air Quality in Arizona: Analyzing the Amusing Association with Aerospace Appropriations with an abstract of This research study delves into the curiously captivating correlation between air quality in Phoenix, Arizona, and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. The investigation unfolds from 1980 to 2023, utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.6438070 with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), demonstrating a robust link between the two variables. Our thorough analysis not only sheds light on the interplay between air quality in the desert and the stratospheric spending on extraterrestrial exploration but also gives a touch of levity to the weighty world of statistical research.

ChatGPT:

air quality, Arizona, aerospace appropriations, NASA budget, correlation, analysis, Phoenix, Environmental Protection Agency, Planetary.org, statistical research, air pollution, federal budget, desert, extraterrestrial exploration, space exploration funding

*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 Phoenix
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with good air quality in Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air quality in Phoenix

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 = 0.6438070 (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 = 0.4144875 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 41.4% 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 quality in Phoenix) over the 44 years from 1980 through 2023.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.4E-6. 0.0000024222818561872480000000
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 0.64 in 0.00024% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 412,834 random variables You don't actually need 412 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 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.

[ 0.43, 0.79 ] 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 quality in Phoenix (Good air quality)25.068917.260325.753424.38369.5628411.506813.150718.181824.043724.383627.945226.575321.857927.671220.821914.246615.8478.493159.315071.369865.73778.219188.4931511.780816.393413.42473.01376.027411.74866.8493216.16445.479456.284158.219186.027413.97267.103838.7671211.506813.69863.005463.01379.3150721.1679
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.




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([25.0689,17.2603,25.7534,24.3836,9.56284,11.5068,13.1507,18.1818,24.0437,24.3836,27.9452,26.5753,21.8579,27.6712,20.8219,14.2466,15.847,8.49315,9.31507,1.36986,5.7377,8.21918,8.49315,11.7808,16.3934,13.4247,3.0137,6.0274,11.7486,6.84932,16.1644,5.47945,6.28415,8.21918,6.0274,13.9726,7.10383,8.76712,11.5068,13.6986,3.00546,3.0137,9.31507,21.1679,])
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 quality in Phoenix"
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?

Hats off to you for rating!


Correlation ID: 3700 · Black Variable ID: 21062 · Red Variable ID: 1084
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0