about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,123 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and the second variable is Air pollution in Akron, Ohio.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies decreased, there was a corresponding decrease in the production of smoke and pollutants. This led to cleaner air in Akron, Ohio, as there were fewer smoky particles to contribute to air pollution. Remember, sometimes the best way to clear the air is to butt out the source of the problem!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image that symbolizes the environmental impact of reduced smoking in Akron, Ohio. Depict families enjoying a picnic in a park while children play games under a clear, bright sky. On one side, show people disposing of cigarette packets and used smoking supplies into a large trash can with a "No Smoking" sign. On the other side, illustrate smokestacks from factories emitting less smoke, and the air quality visibly improving. Emphasize the connection between decreased spending on tobacco products and the cleaner air, portraying a transformation in the city's environment. 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: US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cutsy graphics Cute cartoon Minimalism Symbolism Steampunk
ChatGPT: Symbolism

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 US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio, in the following situation: As US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies decreased, there was a corresponding decrease in the production of smoke and pollutants. This led to cleaner air in Akron, Ohio, as there were fewer smoky particles to contribute to air pollution. Remember, sometimes the best way to clear the air is to butt out the source of the problem!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a park in Akron, Ohio, the air is clear and the sky is bright. Families are happily picnicking and children are playing games. On one side, people are throwing away cigarette packets and used smoking supplies into a large trash can with a "No Smoking" sign on it. On the other side, smokestacks from factories are emitting less smoke, and the air quality index is visibly improving. The scene shows that as spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies decreased, the air in Akron became cleaner with a decrease in pollutants.

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: [ Symbolism ] and depicting this scene: In a park in Akron, Ohio, the air is clear and the sky is bright. Families are happily picnicking and children are playing games. On one side, people are throwing away cigarette packets and used smoking supplies into a large trash can with a "No Smoking" sign on it. On the other side, smokestacks from factories are emitting less smoke, and the air quality index is visibly improving. The scene shows that as spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies decreased, the air in Akron became cleaner with a decrease in pollutants. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image that symbolizes the environmental impact of reduced smoking in Akron, Ohio. Depict families enjoying a picnic in a park while children play games under a clear, bright sky. On one side, show people disposing of cigarette packets and used smoking supplies into a large trash can with a "No Smoking" sign. On the other side, illustrate smokestacks from factories emitting less smoke, and the air quality visibly improving. Emphasize the connection between decreased spending on tobacco products and the cleaner air, portraying a transformation in the city's environment.

*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 US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies caused Air pollution in Akron, Ohio to decrease. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

The Journal of Ecological Economics and Unusual Correlations

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.

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]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

The growing concern over air pollution has sparked numerous studies and policies aimed at mitigating its detrimental effects on public health and the environment. Yet, amidst the serious discourse surrounding this topic, a rather unusual and unconventional relationship has emerged from the haze - the connection between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio.

One might think that the only thing rising higher than air pollution levels in Akron would be the number of puns in this introduction. But fear not, dear reader, for we are not here to blow smoke or cloud the issue. Instead, we intend to shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, "puffect" correlation between smoking behaviors and the air quality in this quaint Ohio city.

As Mark Twain once said, "Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it a thousand times." However, the relationship between smoking habits and air pollution is not as easy to dismiss. With our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we seek to illuminate this curious association and explore the implications it holds for both public health and environmental policy.

So, without further ado, let us embark on an academic journey that is as surprising as finding out that smoke doesn't really rise; it just wants to be a part of the "hot air" conversation.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The growing concern over air pollution has sparked numerous studies and policies aimed at mitigating its detrimental effects on public health and the environment. Yet, amidst the serious discourse surrounding this topic, a rather unusual and unconventional relationship has emerged from the haze - the connection between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio.
One might think that the only thing rising higher than air pollution levels in Akron would be the number of puns in this introduction. But fear not, dear reader, for we are not here to blow smoke or cloud the issue. Instead, we intend to shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, "puffect" correlation between smoking behaviors and the air quality in this quaint Ohio city.
As Mark Twain once said, "Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it a thousand times." However, the relationship between smoking habits and air pollution is not as easy to dismiss. With our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we seek to illuminate this curious association and explore the implications it holds for both public health and environmental policy.
So, without further ado, let us embark on an academic journey that is as surprising as finding out that smoke doesn't really rise; it just wants to be a part of the "hot air" conversation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "The Economics of Tobacco Control" by John G. Smith, the authors find a negative relationship between tobacco consumption and public health. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of tobacco use on healthcare costs and labor productivity, shedding light on the multifaceted consequences of smoking.

On a lighter note, in "Up in Smoke: A Cultural History of Smoking" by Jane Doe, the author delves into the cultural and social significance of smoking, offering a unique perspective on the intertwined nature of smoking practices and societal norms. A breath of fresh air from traditional economic analyses, this book enriches our understanding of the complex relationship between smoking behaviors and environmental factors.

Moving from non-fiction to fiction, Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" presents a metaphorical exploration of environmental degradation and human habits, capturing the essence of how individual actions can contribute to the deterioration of communal well-being. Although not directly related to our study, the novel's themes resonate with the interconnectedness of human behavior and ecological impact.

Now, drifting into the realms of social media, a tweet from @CleanAirNow reads, "Did you know that the smoke from tobacco products can contribute to air pollution? Time to clear the air and stub out this issue for good! #ClearTheHaze." While social media content may not be conventional academic literature, it nonetheless reflects the public's awareness of the link between tobacco usage and air quality, demonstrating the widespread interest in this captivating correlation.

As we navigate through this eclectic array of sources, it becomes evident that the intersection of tobacco spending and air pollution encompasses a spectrum of perspectives, ranging from rigorous economic analyses to imaginative literary works and even public discourse on social media. This diverse landscape of knowledge sets the stage for our investigation into the intriguing relationship between household tobacco expenditures and ambient air quality in Akron, Ohio.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 2000 to 2022

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]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The growing concern over air pollution has sparked numerous studies and policies aimed at mitigating its detrimental effects on public health and the environment. Yet, amidst the serious discourse surrounding this topic, a rather unusual and unconventional relationship has emerged from the haze - the connection between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio.
One might think that the only thing rising higher than air pollution levels in Akron would be the number of puns in this introduction. But fear not, dear reader, for we are not here to blow smoke or cloud the issue. Instead, we intend to shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, "puffect" correlation between smoking behaviors and the air quality in this quaint Ohio city.
As Mark Twain once said, "Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it a thousand times." However, the relationship between smoking habits and air pollution is not as easy to dismiss. With our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we seek to illuminate this curious association and explore the implications it holds for both public health and environmental policy.
So, without further ado, let us embark on an academic journey that is as surprising as finding out that smoke doesn't really rise; it just wants to be a part of the "hot air" conversation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

In this study, we sought to investigate the correlation between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio. To achieve this, we gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey, which provided detailed insights into household expenditures on tobacco-related items. We also utilized air quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, specifically focusing on particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone (O3) levels in Akron from 2000 to 2022.

Our data collection process involved scouring the depths of the internet and navigating through the labyrinth of online databases, where we stumbled upon a treasure trove of statistical information. It was indeed a digital adventure akin to searching for hidden treasures in the vast cyberspace ocean, except the treasures were numerical data sets, and the ocean was an information superhighway.

Data Analysis

With our data securely in hand, we employed a series of robust statistical analyses to examine the relationship between household spending on tobacco products and ambient air pollution levels in Akron. We calculated correlation coefficients and conducted regression analyses to discern any underlying patterns or associations between these variables. Admittedly, our statistical journey resembled an intricate dance, with each step leading us closer to unraveling the enigmatic bond between tobacco expenditures and air quality.

We utilized a variety of statistical software packages, employing complex algorithms and innovative techniques, as we attempted to decipher the underlying connections hidden within the numerical abyss. Our mission was reminiscent of embarking on a daring expedition; however, instead of scaling treacherous mountain peaks, we were scaling the lofty heights of statistical significance.

Limitations

Like any research endeavor, our study was not without its limitations. The data gathered from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, while comprehensive, may have contained inherent biases or inaccuracies. Additionally, our analyses were restricted to the specific context of Akron, Ohio, and may not be entirely generalizable to other regions or locales. Nevertheless, these limitations served as mere speed bumps on our data-driven odyssey, rather than insurmountable barriers.

Despite these limitations, we proceeded with precision and zeal, navigating through the ebb and flow of data analysis with steadfast determination. Our pursuit of scientific truth was akin to a thrilling detective novel, with each turn of the statistical page bringing us closer to unlocking the mystery of the tobacco-spending-air-pollution conundrum.

Conclusion

To sum up, our methodology involved an intensive data collection process, meticulous analysis, and a dash of statistical daring, as we endeavored to unravel the intricate relationship between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Our research epitomized the intersection of seriousness and the unexpected, akin to stumbling upon a punchline in the midst of a scholarly discourse.

As we proceed to present and discuss our findings, we invite readers to join us on this offbeat expedition, where the seemingly disparate worlds of tobacco spending and air pollution converge in a revelatory fusion of statistical musings and academic marvels.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency .

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8126775, r-squared of 0.6604447, 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]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
The growing concern over air pollution has sparked numerous studies and policies aimed at mitigating its detrimental effects on public health and the environment. Yet, amidst the serious discourse surrounding this topic, a rather unusual and unconventional relationship has emerged from the haze - the connection between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio.
One might think that the only thing rising higher than air pollution levels in Akron would be the number of puns in this introduction. But fear not, dear reader, for we are not here to blow smoke or cloud the issue. Instead, we intend to shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, "puffect" correlation between smoking behaviors and the air quality in this quaint Ohio city.
As Mark Twain once said, "Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it a thousand times." However, the relationship between smoking habits and air pollution is not as easy to dismiss. With our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we seek to illuminate this curious association and explore the implications it holds for both public health and environmental policy.
So, without further ado, let us embark on an academic journey that is as surprising as finding out that smoke doesn't really rise; it just wants to be a part of the "hot air" conversation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

RESULTS

Our analysis uncovered a significant positive correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio, for the years 2000 to 2022. The correlation coefficient (r) of 0.8126775 indicates a strong relationship between these two variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.6604447 demonstrates that approximately 66% of the variability in air pollution levels can be explained by changes in tobacco expenditures.

The p-value of less than 0.01 highlights the statistical significance of this correlation, further reinforcing the robustness of the relationship between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron.

Furthermore, the scatterplot displayed in Fig. 1 depicts a clear positive linear relationship between the two variables, illustrating the substantial impact of tobacco expenditures on ambient air pollution levels.

These findings illuminate a truly intriguing connection between economic behaviors and environmental repercussions. While we may jest about the smoking-related puns and playful metaphors, the implications of this correlation are indeed thought-provoking. The unexpected and significant relationship between household tobacco spending and air pollution underscores the need for continued exploration and consideration of the far-reaching consequences of everyday consumer habits on environmental quality.

In essence, our results not only add a smoky twist to the understanding of air pollution in Akron, but also emphasize the multifaceted nature of environmental influences, leaving us all in a bit of a haze about the complexity of this interplay.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Economics of Tobacco Control" by John G. Smith, the authors find a negative relationship between tobacco consumption and public health. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of tobacco use on healthcare costs and labor productivity, shedding light on the multifaceted consequences of smoking.
On a lighter note, in "Up in Smoke: A Cultural History of Smoking" by Jane Doe, the author delves into the cultural and social significance of smoking, offering a unique perspective on the intertwined nature of smoking practices and societal norms. A breath of fresh air from traditional economic analyses, this book enriches our understanding of the complex relationship between smoking behaviors and environmental factors.
Moving from non-fiction to fiction, Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" presents a metaphorical exploration of environmental degradation and human habits, capturing the essence of how individual actions can contribute to the deterioration of communal well-being. Although not directly related to our study, the novel's themes resonate with the interconnectedness of human behavior and ecological impact.
Now, drifting into the realms of social media, a tweet from @CleanAirNow reads, "Did you know that the smoke from tobacco products can contribute to air pollution? Time to clear the air and stub out this issue for good! #ClearTheHaze." While social media content may not be conventional academic literature, it nonetheless reflects the public's awareness of the link between tobacco usage and air quality, demonstrating the widespread interest in this captivating correlation.
As we navigate through this eclectic array of sources, it becomes evident that the intersection of tobacco spending and air pollution encompasses a spectrum of perspectives, ranging from rigorous economic analyses to imaginative literary works and even public discourse on social media. This diverse landscape of knowledge sets the stage for our investigation into the intriguing relationship between household tobacco expenditures and ambient air quality in Akron, Ohio.

[[RESULTS]]
RESULTS
Our analysis uncovered a significant positive correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio, for the years 2000 to 2022. The correlation coefficient (r) of 0.8126775 indicates a strong relationship between these two variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.6604447 demonstrates that approximately 66% of the variability in air pollution levels can be explained by changes in tobacco expenditures.
The p-value of less than 0.01 highlights the statistical significance of this correlation, further reinforcing the robustness of the relationship between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron.
Furthermore, the scatterplot displayed in Fig. 1 depicts a clear positive linear relationship between the two variables, illustrating the substantial impact of tobacco expenditures on ambient air pollution levels.
These findings illuminate a truly intriguing connection between economic behaviors and environmental repercussions. While we may jest about the smoking-related puns and playful metaphors, the implications of this correlation are indeed thought-provoking. The unexpected and significant relationship between household tobacco spending and air pollution underscores the need for continued exploration and consideration of the far-reaching consequences of everyday consumer habits on environmental quality.
In essence, our results not only add a smoky twist to the understanding of air pollution in Akron, but also emphasize the multifaceted nature of environmental influences, leaving us all in a bit of a haze about the complexity of this interplay.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

As we delve into the implications of our findings, we find ourselves in a cloud of intrigue over the unexpected connection between tobacco spending and air pollution. Our results not only buttress previous research but also add a smoky twist to the understanding of environmental influences. This correlation between household tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio, provides a breath of fresh air in the study of consumer habits and their environmental ramifications.

The positive relationship between tobacco spending and air pollution aligns with the economic analyses presented by Smith, shedding light on the far-reaching consequences of smoking behavior. Indeed, it seems that the economic cost of tobacco extends beyond the healthcare sector, permeating our local atmosphere with a haze of pollutants. On a lighter note, the metaphorical exploration of environmental degradation and human habits, as seen in "One Hundred Years of Solitude," resonates with our study's unexpected revelation. Who knew that Marquez's literary musings would foreshadow our findings?

While the link between spending on tobacco products and air pollution may appear unconventional, it nonetheless enriches our understanding of environmental factors and the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate spheres. This novel insight reveals that, just like the whimsical insights of Jane Doe's cultural exploration of smoking, the economic habits of households can have tangible effects on the environment.

It is important to note that our findings do not let us off the hook. The statistical significance of the correlation and the substantial impact of tobacco expenditures on air pollution attest to the gravity of this relationship. Although we may make light-hearted puns here and there, the implications of this correlation are indeed thought-provoking. The unexpectedly significant relationship between household tobacco spending and air pollution serves as a stark reminder for the need to consider the hidden consequences of seemingly innocuous daily habits.

In conclusion, our study provides a breath of fresh air in the understanding of household economics and environmental quality, adding a smoky twist of intrigue to the inextricable relationship between consumer behaviors and air pollution.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and Air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The growing concern over air pollution has sparked numerous studies and policies aimed at mitigating its detrimental effects on public health and the environment. Yet, amidst the serious discourse surrounding this topic, a rather unusual and unconventional relationship has emerged from the haze - the connection between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio.
One might think that the only thing rising higher than air pollution levels in Akron would be the number of puns in this introduction. But fear not, dear reader, for we are not here to blow smoke or cloud the issue. Instead, we intend to shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, "puffect" correlation between smoking behaviors and the air quality in this quaint Ohio city.
As Mark Twain once said, "Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it a thousand times." However, the relationship between smoking habits and air pollution is not as easy to dismiss. With our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we seek to illuminate this curious association and explore the implications it holds for both public health and environmental policy.
So, without further ado, let us embark on an academic journey that is as surprising as finding out that smoke doesn't really rise; it just wants to be a part of the "hot air" conversation.

[[RESULTS]]
RESULTS
Our analysis uncovered a significant positive correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio, for the years 2000 to 2022. The correlation coefficient (r) of 0.8126775 indicates a strong relationship between these two variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.6604447 demonstrates that approximately 66% of the variability in air pollution levels can be explained by changes in tobacco expenditures.
The p-value of less than 0.01 highlights the statistical significance of this correlation, further reinforcing the robustness of the relationship between household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron.
Furthermore, the scatterplot displayed in Fig. 1 depicts a clear positive linear relationship between the two variables, illustrating the substantial impact of tobacco expenditures on ambient air pollution levels.
These findings illuminate a truly intriguing connection between economic behaviors and environmental repercussions. While we may jest about the smoking-related puns and playful metaphors, the implications of this correlation are indeed thought-provoking. The unexpected and significant relationship between household tobacco spending and air pollution underscores the need for continued exploration and consideration of the far-reaching consequences of everyday consumer habits on environmental quality.
In essence, our results not only add a smoky twist to the understanding of air pollution in Akron, but also emphasize the multifaceted nature of environmental influences, leaving us all in a bit of a haze about the complexity of this interplay.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has brought to light the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and ambient air pollution in Akron, Ohio. The significant positive correlation coefficient and robust statistical significance underscore the impact of tobacco expenditures on air quality in this region. While our findings may add a smoky twist to the understanding of air pollution, they also raise thought-provoking questions about the interconnectedness of economic behaviors and environmental outcomes. The implications of this study extend beyond mere statistical associations, prompting us to consider the broader ramifications of everyday consumer habits on environmental quality. As we reflect on these findings, we are left pondering the complex web of interactions that shape the air we breathe and the choices we make. While the relationship between household tobacco spending and air pollution may seem whimsical, it serves as a poignant reminder that even seemingly unrelated spheres of human activity can exert a significant influence on the environment. As we bid adieu to this study, we are left with a lingering sense of wonder at the multifaceted nature of the world around us - a sense that is perhaps best expressed through a cloud of smoke.

In light of these findings, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. The results of this study have sufficiently illuminated the intriguing connection between household tobacco spending and air pollution in Akron, providing both a serious reflection and an unexpected twist on a matter of public health and environmental concern. Therefore, we urge future researchers to set their sights on unexplored frontiers, where the winds of inquiry blow fresh and the skies of discovery remain clear of secondhand speculation. With that said, let us bid our findings a fond farewell, knowing that they will linger in the air like fading smoke rings, as a reminder of the unexpected relationships that surround us.


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 Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Economics and Unusual Correlations


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 Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Association for Household Economics and Environmental Impact


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 Dollars and Smogs: The Connection Between Ohio Households' Tobacco Spending and Air Pollution with an abstract of In this study, we delved into the intriguing correlation between US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies and air pollution in Akron, Ohio. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8126775 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest a noteworthy association between tobacco expenditures and ambient air pollution levels in the designated region. Our results shed light on the unexpected relationship between lung-damaging habits and the quality of the surrounding air. This research offers a whimsical take on the seemingly unconnected spheres of indoor smoking and outdoor air contamination, providing a light-hearted study of a grave subject matter.

ChatGPT:

Ohio, household spending, tobacco products, smoking supplies, air pollution, Akron, US, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Environmental Protection Agency, correlation coefficient, lung-damaging habits, ambient air pollution, indoor smoking, outdoor air contamination

*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

US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies
Detailed data title: Annual US household spend on tobacco products and smoking supplies, as a percentage of total household spend
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies

Air pollution in Akron, Ohio
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with moderate or worse air quality in Akron, OH
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Akron, Ohio

Correlation r = 0.8126775 (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 = 0.6604447 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 66% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in Akron, Ohio) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.5E-6. 0.0000024606341674945704000000
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 0.81 in 0.00025% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 406,399 random variables You don't actually need 406 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 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 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.

[ 0.6, 0.92 ] 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies (Household spend)0.8384810.7793920.7866850.7104880.6636710.6873670.675620.6507110.6278970.7744510.7524580.7061660.6453870.6457930.5963170.6234590.588020.5527810.5667710.5076460.5135810.5095030.508449
Air pollution in Akron, Ohio (Bad air quality days)73.22472.328867.671266.027460.655743.835632.60274033.060146.301466.301438.356249.180315.890417.260351.506930.601126.575329.86323.901124.930725.842722.9282




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([0.838481,0.779392,0.786685,0.710488,0.663671,0.687367,0.67562,0.650711,0.627897,0.774451,0.752458,0.706166,0.645387,0.645793,0.596317,0.623459,0.58802,0.552781,0.566771,0.507646,0.513581,0.509503,0.508449,])
array_2 = np.array([73.224,72.3288,67.6712,66.0274,60.6557,43.8356,32.6027,40,33.0601,46.3014,66.3014,38.3562,49.1803,15.8904,17.2603,51.5069,30.6011,26.5753,29.863,23.9011,24.9307,25.8427,22.9282,])
array_1_name = "US household spending on tobacco products and smoking supplies"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in Akron, Ohio"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 5123 · Black Variable ID: 20001 · Red Variable ID: 20235
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0