about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,859 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and the second variable is NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget.  The chart goes from 1990 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the air in Marietta cleared up, residents could finally see the stars at night, leading to a collective fascination with space. This sparked a local grassroots movement to reallocate government funds from NASA to support the construction of a giant space-themed amusement park. After all, who needs a Space Force when you can have a Space Roller Coaster? Or maybe the clean air inspired a surge in backyard rocket experiments, prompting the government to rethink its investment in professional space exploration altogether. After all, why spend billions on rockets when you can just ask Uncle Jed to build one in his shed? It's a homegrown space race!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image with a realistic style showing a clear, blue sky backdrop in Marietta, Ohio. In the foreground, depict a smaller rocket symbolizing NASA's budget against the backdrop. Ensure that the clear skies and reduced air pollution are visually represented in the composition. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio 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: Macabre Realistic a funny image macro Cubism A photo-realistic image
ChatGPT: Realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget, in the following situation: As air pollution decreased in Marietta, Ohio, the atmosphere became clearer, allowing NASA to see that their budget was out of this world! With a clearer view, they realized they were spending too much rocket fuel on unnecessary expenses, so they had to downsize their budget to stay grounded.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Marietta, Ohio, the skies cleared as air pollution decreased. NASA's budget, which had been soaring high, was now visualized as a smaller rocket against the blue, clear backdrop.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In Marietta, Ohio, the skies cleared as air pollution decreased. NASA's budget, which had been soaring high, was now visualized as a smaller rocket against the blue, clear backdrop. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image with a realistic style showing a clear, blue sky backdrop in Marietta, Ohio. In the foreground, depict a smaller rocket symbolizing NASA's budget against the backdrop. Ensure that the clear skies and reduced air pollution are visually represented in the composition.

*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 a decrease in Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio caused NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget to decrease. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

The Journal of Environmental Anomalies and Cosmic Economics

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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of 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 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for 1990 to 2020.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The mysterious dance of budgetary allocations has long intrigued researchers and policymakers alike. Amidst the vast expanse of federal spending, peculiar patterns often emerge, resembling cosmic choreography. Our study delves into the perplexing paradox of a potential link between the air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the allocation of funds for NASA, an agency dedicated to exploring the outer reaches of our universe.

While the connection may seem as improbable as finding a shooting star in the midst of urban smog, our research has unveiled a correlation coefficient that could rival the orbit of celestial bodies. With a statistical coefficient of 0.8167689 and a significance level of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1990 to 2020, the findings have sparked a cosmic commotion among our research team. The lead researcher was overheard exclaiming, "This is more mind-boggling than a black hole's gravitational pull!"

The juxtaposition of earthly emissions in Marietta, Ohio, with the celestial aspirations of NASA's budget allocation has left our team pondering the cosmic comedy that unfolds in budgetary realms. As we unravel this peculiar connection, we invite you to join us in exploring the quirky interplay between pollution and space exploration, a cosmic conundrum that may leave you astounded and, perhaps, with a newfound appreciation for the whimsical ways of budget allocations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of 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 name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The mysterious dance of budgetary allocations has long intrigued researchers and policymakers alike. Amidst the vast expanse of federal spending, peculiar patterns often emerge, resembling cosmic choreography. Our study delves into the perplexing paradox of a potential link between the air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the allocation of funds for NASA, an agency dedicated to exploring the outer reaches of our universe.
While the connection may seem as improbable as finding a shooting star in the midst of urban smog, our research has unveiled a correlation coefficient that could rival the orbit of celestial bodies. With a statistical coefficient of 0.8167689 and a significance level of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1990 to 2020, the findings have sparked a cosmic commotion among our research team. The lead researcher was overheard exclaiming, "This is more mind-boggling than a black hole's gravitational pull!"
The juxtaposition of earthly emissions in Marietta, Ohio, with the celestial aspirations of NASA's budget allocation has left our team pondering the cosmic comedy that unfolds in budgetary realms. As we unravel this peculiar connection, we invite you to join us in exploring the quirky interplay between pollution and space exploration, a cosmic conundrum that may leave you astounded and, perhaps, with a newfound appreciation for the whimsical ways of budget allocations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith (2015) delves into the intricate interplay between environmental factors and budgetary allocations, shedding light on the complexities that underlie the federal spending landscape. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) explore the far-reaching effects of pollution on various facets of society, hinting at the potential for unsuspected interconnections with seemingly unrelated domains.

However, as we journey deeper into the peculiar correlation between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget, we embark on a cosmic rollercoaster of unexpected revelations that beckon for a dash of humor amidst the serious scholarly discourse. For instance, in the book "Astro-Economics: Making Money from the Stars" by Green and Stardust, the authors propose a whimsical connection between celestial phenomena and economic trends, teasing at the notion of financial fluctuations taking cues from extraterrestrial influences.

In a more fictional realm, the classic "Cosmic Hobos and Atmospheric Anomalies" by Starry Nightweaver offers a captivating tale of interstellar drifters encountering earthly pollutants in a delightful cosmic romp. Taking a somewhat different approach, "Sulfur Dioxide in Space: A Love Story" by Nova Starlight explores the star-crossed bond between airborne emissions and celestial bodies, infusing the scientific with a dash of romance and intergalactic intrigue.

Having delved into the cosmic realms of literature, we turned our sights to popular culture, seeking cues from the screen. "Pollution Predicament: A Space Odyssey" and "NASA Budget Battles: The Final Frontier" are not only intriguing titles but also fictional TV shows that tickle the imagination with their improbable premises. While these may not offer empirical evidence, they certainly provide an entertaining foray into the realms of space and pollution.

With this whimsical detour through literature and popular culture, we aim to infuse levity into the probing of this cosmic conundrum, recognizing the multidimensional nature of our investigation and the potential for unexpected twists and turns as we unravel the paradoxical link between earthly emissions and extraterrestrial exploration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of 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 1990 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The mysterious dance of budgetary allocations has long intrigued researchers and policymakers alike. Amidst the vast expanse of federal spending, peculiar patterns often emerge, resembling cosmic choreography. Our study delves into the perplexing paradox of a potential link between the air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the allocation of funds for NASA, an agency dedicated to exploring the outer reaches of our universe.
While the connection may seem as improbable as finding a shooting star in the midst of urban smog, our research has unveiled a correlation coefficient that could rival the orbit of celestial bodies. With a statistical coefficient of 0.8167689 and a significance level of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1990 to 2020, the findings have sparked a cosmic commotion among our research team. The lead researcher was overheard exclaiming, "This is more mind-boggling than a black hole's gravitational pull!"
The juxtaposition of earthly emissions in Marietta, Ohio, with the celestial aspirations of NASA's budget allocation has left our team pondering the cosmic comedy that unfolds in budgetary realms. As we unravel this peculiar connection, we invite you to join us in exploring the quirky interplay between pollution and space exploration, a cosmic conundrum that may leave you astounded and, perhaps, with a newfound appreciation for the whimsical ways of budget allocations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The methodology employed in this study harnessed a twofold approach, encompassing the terrestrial terra firma of environmental data collection and the celestial sphere of budgetary analysis. The initial step involved a comprehensive data collection process, akin to a cosmic scavenger hunt, sourcing information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Planetary.org, with data spanning the years 1990 to 2020. This strategy enabled the research team to cast a wide net, capturing the elusive emissions data from Marietta, Ohio, while also capturing the astronomical figures related to NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget.

The environmental data acquisition from the EPA entailed wrangling through an atmospheric abundance of pollutant concentrations, encompassing carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter, akin to identifying constellations in a smog-filled night sky. It is worth noting that the EPA's comprehensive data repository provided a robust foundation for the terrestrial component of the study. As for the celestial component, the Planetary.org served as a beacon in the cosmic expanse, illuminating the budgetary allocation figures for NASA with the precision of a telescope locked onto a distant quasar.

Upon the celestial and terrestrial data gathering process, the research team undertook a harmonious merging of the datasets, akin to orchestrating a celestial waltz amidst the earthly emissions. The statistical analysis was performed using a multivariate regression model, which aimed to untangle the cosmic correlations between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the budgetary commitments to NASA. The model accounted for potential confounding variables, resembling the gravitational pull of unseen celestial bodies, to isolate the peculiar interplay between air pollution and NASA's budget.

Furthermore, to enhance the robustness and reliability of the findings, a sensitivity analysis akin to perturbing the orbit of a planet, was conducted to gauge the stability of the correlation across different time periods and sub-samples. This approach allowed for a comprehensive validation of the unearthly link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the celestial ramifications on NASA's budgetary allocations.

The statistical computations were performed using advanced software tools, akin to wielding a cosmic calculator with precision and finesse, to derive the correlation coefficient and the associated significance levels. The research team rigorously scrutinized the results, acknowledging the cosmic comedy that unfolded within the statistical outputs.

Additionally, to guard against the risk of spurious correlation, the methodology incorporated robustness checks, akin to fortifying a spacecraft for the rigors of interstellar travel, to ensure that the unearthly link between air pollution and NASA's budget exhibited a genuine cosmic connection and was not a mere artifact of statistical cosmic noise.

In summary, the methodology of this study combined the terrestrial and celestial realms, culminating in an exploration of the peculiar and unexpected link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the budgetary allocations to NASA, mirroring the whimsical dance of cosmic forces and earthly emissions.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of 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 1990 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8167689, r-squared of 0.6671114, 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]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The mysterious dance of budgetary allocations has long intrigued researchers and policymakers alike. Amidst the vast expanse of federal spending, peculiar patterns often emerge, resembling cosmic choreography. Our study delves into the perplexing paradox of a potential link between the air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the allocation of funds for NASA, an agency dedicated to exploring the outer reaches of our universe.
While the connection may seem as improbable as finding a shooting star in the midst of urban smog, our research has unveiled a correlation coefficient that could rival the orbit of celestial bodies. With a statistical coefficient of 0.8167689 and a significance level of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1990 to 2020, the findings have sparked a cosmic commotion among our research team. The lead researcher was overheard exclaiming, "This is more mind-boggling than a black hole's gravitational pull!"
The juxtaposition of earthly emissions in Marietta, Ohio, with the celestial aspirations of NASA's budget allocation has left our team pondering the cosmic comedy that unfolds in budgetary realms. As we unravel this peculiar connection, we invite you to join us in exploring the quirky interplay between pollution and space exploration, a cosmic conundrum that may leave you astounded and, perhaps, with a newfound appreciation for the whimsical ways of budget allocations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data collected from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org revealed a surprisingly strong correlation (r = 0.8167689) between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget for the period of 1990 to 2020. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.6671114 indicated that approximately 67% of the variability in NASA's budget could be explained by the variability in air pollution levels in Marietta.

The p-value of less than 0.01 further strengthened the evidence of a significant relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding left the research team scratching their heads in cosmic confusion, as the common adage of "it's not rocket science" seemed to be out of reach in this particular instance.

The data is graphically illustrated in Fig. 1, a scatterplot showcasing the robust correlation between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and the share of the federal budget allocated to NASA. The scatterplot reveals a positively sloped trendline, indicating that as air pollution levels increase, there is a corresponding increase in NASA's budget allocation. This phenomenon has led to whimsical speculations within the research team, with one member joking, "Maybe the smog in Marietta acts as a distress signal for extraterrestrial beings, prompting increased funding for space exploration!"

The unexpected nature of this connection has not only piqued scholarly interest but also added a touch of cosmic humor to the otherwise dry domain of budgetary analysis. It is a reminder that in the vast cosmos of research, there are still perplexing puzzles waiting to be decoded, leaving us marveling at the quirkiness of the universe we inhabit.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of 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]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith (2015) delves into the intricate interplay between environmental factors and budgetary allocations, shedding light on the complexities that underlie the federal spending landscape. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) explore the far-reaching effects of pollution on various facets of society, hinting at the potential for unsuspected interconnections with seemingly unrelated domains.
However, as we journey deeper into the peculiar correlation between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget, we embark on a cosmic rollercoaster of unexpected revelations that beckon for a dash of humor amidst the serious scholarly discourse. For instance, in the book "Astro-Economics: Making Money from the Stars" by Green and Stardust, the authors propose a whimsical connection between celestial phenomena and economic trends, teasing at the notion of financial fluctuations taking cues from extraterrestrial influences.
In a more fictional realm, the classic "Cosmic Hobos and Atmospheric Anomalies" by Starry Nightweaver offers a captivating tale of interstellar drifters encountering earthly pollutants in a delightful cosmic romp. Taking a somewhat different approach, "Sulfur Dioxide in Space: A Love Story" by Nova Starlight explores the star-crossed bond between airborne emissions and celestial bodies, infusing the scientific with a dash of romance and intergalactic intrigue.
Having delved into the cosmic realms of literature, we turned our sights to popular culture, seeking cues from the screen. "Pollution Predicament: A Space Odyssey" and "NASA Budget Battles: The Final Frontier" are not only intriguing titles but also fictional TV shows that tickle the imagination with their improbable premises. While these may not offer empirical evidence, they certainly provide an entertaining foray into the realms of space and pollution.
With this whimsical detour through literature and popular culture, we aim to infuse levity into the probing of this cosmic conundrum, recognizing the multidimensional nature of our investigation and the potential for unexpected twists and turns as we unravel the paradoxical link between earthly emissions and extraterrestrial exploration.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org revealed a surprisingly strong correlation (r = 0.8167689) between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget for the period of 1990 to 2020. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.6671114 indicated that approximately 67% of the variability in NASA's budget could be explained by the variability in air pollution levels in Marietta.
The p-value of less than 0.01 further strengthened the evidence of a significant relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding left the research team scratching their heads in cosmic confusion, as the common adage of "it's not rocket science" seemed to be out of reach in this particular instance.
The data is graphically illustrated in Fig. 1, a scatterplot showcasing the robust correlation between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and the share of the federal budget allocated to NASA. The scatterplot reveals a positively sloped trendline, indicating that as air pollution levels increase, there is a corresponding increase in NASA's budget allocation. This phenomenon has led to whimsical speculations within the research team, with one member joking, "Maybe the smog in Marietta acts as a distress signal for extraterrestrial beings, prompting increased funding for space exploration!"
The unexpected nature of this connection has not only piqued scholarly interest but also added a touch of cosmic humor to the otherwise dry domain of budgetary analysis. It is a reminder that in the vast cosmos of research, there are still perplexing puzzles waiting to be decoded, leaving us marveling at the quirkiness of the universe we inhabit.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our investigation have brought to light a startling connection between the earthly emissions in Marietta, Ohio and the federal funds allotted for extraterrestrial expeditions, offering a cosmic caper that has left our research team positively starry-eyed. The robust correlation between air pollution levels and NASA's budget allocation has given rise to a constellation of questions, each more puzzling than the last.

Our findings support the prior research, which hinted at the possibility of unexpected interconnections between seemingly disparate domains. The whimsical literature review of Green and Stardust's "Astro-Economics: Making Money from the Stars" and Starry Nightweaver's "Cosmic Hobos and Atmospheric Anomalies," while initially received with a chuckle, seem to have a grain of truth in them after all. The interstellar influences on economic trends, as suggested by these authors, now appear less far-fetched and more within the realm of cosmic possibility.

The unexpected revelation of a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and a p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the significance of this celestial-terrestrial entanglement. As the scatterplot showcased a positively sloped trendline, it became increasingly apparent that the whimsical idea of pollution acting as a distress signal for extraterrestrial beings, as jestingly proposed by a member of our team, may not be as far-fetched as it initially appeared.

The seemingly paradoxical link we have unearthed not only reaffirms the multidimensional nature of the universe but also infuses a touch of comedy into the usually dour domain of budgetary analysis. It serves as a gentle reminder that within the realms of scientific inquiry, there lurks an extraordinary potential for delightful surprises and cosmic mysteries waiting to be unraveled. This revelation has left us grinning at the cosmic comedy and pondering the possibility of a heavenly budgetary intervention in response to an earthly distress signal. Indeed, as we delve deeper into this cosmic conundrum, we are reminded that in the grand dance of the cosmos, there is always room for unexpected twirls and delightful surprises.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. Make lots of 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]]
Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.

The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The mysterious dance of budgetary allocations has long intrigued researchers and policymakers alike. Amidst the vast expanse of federal spending, peculiar patterns often emerge, resembling cosmic choreography. Our study delves into the perplexing paradox of a potential link between the air pollution in Marietta, Ohio, and the allocation of funds for NASA, an agency dedicated to exploring the outer reaches of our universe.
While the connection may seem as improbable as finding a shooting star in the midst of urban smog, our research has unveiled a correlation coefficient that could rival the orbit of celestial bodies. With a statistical coefficient of 0.8167689 and a significance level of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1990 to 2020, the findings have sparked a cosmic commotion among our research team. The lead researcher was overheard exclaiming, "This is more mind-boggling than a black hole's gravitational pull!"
The juxtaposition of earthly emissions in Marietta, Ohio, with the celestial aspirations of NASA's budget allocation has left our team pondering the cosmic comedy that unfolds in budgetary realms. As we unravel this peculiar connection, we invite you to join us in exploring the quirky interplay between pollution and space exploration, a cosmic conundrum that may leave you astounded and, perhaps, with a newfound appreciation for the whimsical ways of budget allocations.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org revealed a surprisingly strong correlation (r = 0.8167689) between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget for the period of 1990 to 2020. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.6671114 indicated that approximately 67% of the variability in NASA's budget could be explained by the variability in air pollution levels in Marietta.
The p-value of less than 0.01 further strengthened the evidence of a significant relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding left the research team scratching their heads in cosmic confusion, as the common adage of "it's not rocket science" seemed to be out of reach in this particular instance.
The data is graphically illustrated in Fig. 1, a scatterplot showcasing the robust correlation between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and the share of the federal budget allocated to NASA. The scatterplot reveals a positively sloped trendline, indicating that as air pollution levels increase, there is a corresponding increase in NASA's budget allocation. This phenomenon has led to whimsical speculations within the research team, with one member joking, "Maybe the smog in Marietta acts as a distress signal for extraterrestrial beings, prompting increased funding for space exploration!"
The unexpected nature of this connection has not only piqued scholarly interest but also added a touch of cosmic humor to the otherwise dry domain of budgetary analysis. It is a reminder that in the vast cosmos of research, there are still perplexing puzzles waiting to be decoded, leaving us marveling at the quirkiness of the universe we inhabit.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unveiled a surprising correlation between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget. While the statistical evidence is compelling, the cosmic comedy of this connection has left our research team marveling at the whimsical ways of budgetary allocations.

This perplexing paradox has prompted whimsical speculations, with one member joking that perhaps the smog in Marietta acts as a distress signal for extraterrestrial beings, prompting increased funding for space exploration. The sheer cosmic irony of this connection has undoubtedly added a touch of humor to the otherwise serious realm of budgetary analysis.

Despite the robust correlation coefficient and the p-value of less than 0.01, we are left with a lingering sense of cosmic confusion as we grapple with the absurdity of this link. Indeed, this study serves as a reminder that in the expanse of research, there are still perplexing puzzles waiting to be decoded, leaving us astounded by the quirkiness of the universe we inhabit.

Nevertheless, further research in this area may not yield additional insights, as the cosmic conundrum between earthly emissions and space exploration funding seems to defy logical explanation. Therefore, we humorously assert that no more research is needed in this peculiar, paradoxical, and undoubtedly peculiar area of study.


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 Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Environmental Anomalies and Cosmic Economics


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 Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Astrodynamics and the Pollutant Paradox


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 Pollution's Peculiar Correlation: Probing the Paradoxical Link between Air Pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's Budget with an abstract of This study delved into the peculiar possibility of a paradoxical link between air pollution in Marietta, Ohio and NASA's budget. Despite the vast void of logic in such a connection, our research uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8167689 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2020, which ignited a cosmic commotion among our research team. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Planetary.org, we conducted a thorough examination of this quirky correlation.
The findings suggest an unexpected interstellar interplay that will leave you astounded as we unravel the cosmic conundrum between the earthly emissions in Marietta and the federal funds flowing towards NASA. This investigation has left us smiling at the sheer cosmic comedy of how pollution and space exploration may be intertwined in the grand cosmic dance of budgetary allocations.

ChatGPT:

"air pollution Marietta Ohio NASA budget correlation", "environmental protection agency air pollution data", "NASA budget allocation analysis", "air pollution impact on federal funding", "EPA data correlation with NASA budget", "Marietta Ohio air quality study", "interplay between pollution and space exploration funding", "correlation coefficient air pollution NASA budget"

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Marietta, OH
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio

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 = 0.8167689 (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 = 0.6671114 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 66.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio) over the 31 years from 1990 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.1E-8. 0.0000000209645796142334500000
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 0.82 in 2.1E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 47,699,502 random variables You don't actually need 47 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 30 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 30 because we have two variables measured over a period of 31 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.

[ 0.65, 0.91 ] 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.
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio (Bad air quality days)0.1603770.2095240.07729470.2319590.1848340.1359220.08196720.04529620.1314880.1530250.06315790.0871080.1448760.04453440.03375530.1282050.05485230.109170.04672900.0467290.01895730.03271030.004694840.010.0046729000.012244900.00408163
NASA's budget as a percentage of the total US Federal Budget (Percent of Federal Budget)0.991.051.011.010.940.880.890.90.860.80.750.760.720.680.660.630.570.580.60.540.550.490.490.490.490.50.490.470.480.480.35




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([0.160377,0.209524,0.0772947,0.231959,0.184834,0.135922,0.0819672,0.0452962,0.131488,0.153025,0.0631579,0.087108,0.144876,0.0445344,0.0337553,0.128205,0.0548523,0.10917,0.046729,0,0.046729,0.0189573,0.0327103,0.00469484,0.01,0.0046729,0,0,0.0122449,0,0.00408163,])
array_2 = np.array([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,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Marietta, Ohio"
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: 3859 · Black Variable ID: 22221 · Red Variable ID: 1084
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0