about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,310 · 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 Greenville, North Carolina and the second variable is Google searches for 'skydiving accident'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2012, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The smog got so thick that the skydivers mistook it for the landing zone!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a scene featuring a clear blue sky with a group of adorable cartoon skydivers joyfully gliding through the air. Their colorful parachutes billow gracefully in the wind, each with unique patterns and designs. As the scene progresses, the sky becomes hazy and murky, with smog rolling in to obscure the sun. The skydivers' expressions change from delight to worry as they struggle to navigate through the thick, polluted air. Their movements grow erratic and unsteady, and they begin to plummet uncontrollably. Their once graceful descent turns chaotic as they battle against the foul air, adding an element of danger to their free fall. Capture the contrast between the initial serenity and the ensuing chaos in a visually compelling manner. 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 situation described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here is a situation: Because as the air quality got worse, it got harder for skydivers to "air"-navigate, leading to more "plummeting" incidents. It's like trying to skydive through a smog cloud - talk about a real "down"-fall! The poor air quality probably made it difficult for skydivers to "stay afloat," causing them to "nose dive" more often. It's a case of "air pollution" leading to "air turbulence" for these daredevils. And when you're already risking your life jumping out of a plane, the last thing you need is "foul air" adding to the "free fall" woes!. Given that situation, which of the following image descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand and the tone of the explanation. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A photo-realistic image Data cyber art Cute cartoon A Discovery magazine cover image Realistic
ChatGPT: Cute cartoon

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated and the explanation described. Do not reference graphs or charts; describe physical objects.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that depicts the following situation. Keep the description simple. Because as the air quality got worse, it got harder for skydivers to "air"-navigate, leading to more "plummeting" incidents. It's like trying to skydive through a smog cloud - talk about a real "down"-fall! The poor air quality probably made it difficult for skydivers to "stay afloat," causing them to "nose dive" more often. It's a case of "air pollution" leading to "air turbulence" for these daredevils. And when you're already risking your life jumping out of a plane, the last thing you need is "foul air" adding to the "free fall" woes!
ChatGPT: Imagine a clear blue sky with a flock of skydivers gracefully gliding through the air, their colorful parachutes billowing in the wind. Then, picture the sky becoming hazy and murky as smog rolls in, obscuring the sun. The skydivers start to struggle, their movements becoming erratic and unsteady as they attempt to navigate through the thick, polluted air. They begin to plummet uncontrollably, their parachutes unable to catch the polluted air, causing them to nose dive more frequently. The once serene scene turns chaotic as the skydivers battle against the foul air, adding an element of danger to their free fall.

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: [ Cute cartoon ] and depicting this scene: Imagine a clear blue sky with a flock of skydivers gracefully gliding through the air, their colorful parachutes billowing in the wind. Then, picture the sky becoming hazy and murky as smog rolls in, obscuring the sun. The skydivers start to struggle, their movements becoming erratic and unsteady as they attempt to navigate through the thick, polluted air. They begin to plummet uncontrollably, their parachutes unable to catch the polluted air, causing them to nose dive more frequently. The once serene scene turns chaotic as the skydivers battle against the foul air, adding an element of danger to their free fall. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a scene featuring a clear blue sky with a group of adorable cartoon skydivers joyfully gliding through the air. Their colorful parachutes billow gracefully in the wind, each with unique patterns and designs. As the scene progresses, the sky becomes hazy and murky, with smog rolling in to obscure the sun. The skydivers' expressions change from delight to worry as they struggle to navigate through the thick, polluted air. Their movements grow erratic and unsteady, and they begin to plummet uncontrollably. Their once graceful descent turns chaotic as they battle against the foul air, adding an element of danger to their free fall. Capture the contrast between the initial serenity and the ensuing chaos in a visually compelling manner.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina caused skydiving accident (Google searches for 'skydiving accident') to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

The Journal of Ecological Quirks

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2012.

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]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

As researchers, we are often accustomed to uncovering profound connections and unraveling complex phenomena. However, every now and then, a truly peculiar correlation emerges that leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment. Such is the case with the unlikely intertwining of air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. It's a classic case of "What in the world?" meets "Wait, why does this even exist?" Our investigation aims to shed light on this enigmatic relationship and unearth the peculiar parallels between pollutants and parachutes.

The interplay between air quality and skydiving mishaps might seem as incongruous as mixing oil and water, but hey, stranger things have happened, right? Armed with a tidily manicured statistical toolkit and an insatiable curiosity, we delved into the data like intrepid explorers, ready to uncover the unexpected treasures within. And boy, did we stumble upon quite the unique gem! Who knew that the whimsical world of research could lead us down a rabbit hole that's as surprising as finding a Labrador retriever hosting a physics lecture?

To add some scientific tidbits to our zany journey, we amassed thorough data from the Environmental Protection Agency to gauge the air pollution levels in Greenville, while simultaneously prowling the digital realm for the frequency of searches related to skydiving accidents using the omnipotent Google Trends. Our zany adventure through statistics and SpongeBob memes led us to a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and a p-value that brought tears of statistical significance to our eyes, all for the period spanning from 2004 to 2012. We've taken an amusement park ride through the whimsical complexities of this correlation, all in the noble pursuit of scientific enlightenment and a chuckle or two along the way.

Through this offbeat expedition, we hope to not only entertain our fellow researchers and readers but also prompt a moment of contemplation. After all, who would have thought that the whimsical dance of pollutants in the air and the alluring allure of skydiving mishaps could come together to form such a captivating duo? The world of research is undoubtedly an absurdly enchanting place, and this quirky correlation serves as a lighthearted reminder of the wondrous discoveries that await us, often in the unlikeliest of places. So buckle up and strap on your parachutes, dear reader, for we're about to take a wild leap into the realm of research oddities!


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. 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 couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
As researchers, we are often accustomed to uncovering profound connections and unraveling complex phenomena. However, every now and then, a truly peculiar correlation emerges that leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment. Such is the case with the unlikely intertwining of air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. It's a classic case of "What in the world?" meets "Wait, why does this even exist?" Our investigation aims to shed light on this enigmatic relationship and unearth the peculiar parallels between pollutants and parachutes.
The interplay between air quality and skydiving mishaps might seem as incongruous as mixing oil and water, but hey, stranger things have happened, right? Armed with a tidily manicured statistical toolkit and an insatiable curiosity, we delved into the data like intrepid explorers, ready to uncover the unexpected treasures within. And boy, did we stumble upon quite the unique gem! Who knew that the whimsical world of research could lead us down a rabbit hole that's as surprising as finding a Labrador retriever hosting a physics lecture?
To add some scientific tidbits to our zany journey, we amassed thorough data from the Environmental Protection Agency to gauge the air pollution levels in Greenville, while simultaneously prowling the digital realm for the frequency of searches related to skydiving accidents using the omnipotent Google Trends. Our zany adventure through statistics and SpongeBob memes led us to a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and a p-value that brought tears of statistical significance to our eyes, all for the period spanning from 2004 to 2012. We've taken an amusement park ride through the whimsical complexities of this correlation, all in the noble pursuit of scientific enlightenment and a chuckle or two along the way.
Through this offbeat expedition, we hope to not only entertain our fellow researchers and readers but also prompt a moment of contemplation. After all, who would have thought that the whimsical dance of pollutants in the air and the alluring allure of skydiving mishaps could come together to form such a captivating duo? The world of research is undoubtedly an absurdly enchanting place, and this quirky correlation serves as a lighthearted reminder of the wondrous discoveries that await us, often in the unlikeliest of places. So buckle up and strap on your parachutes, dear reader, for we're about to take a wild leap into the realm of research oddities!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith et al. (2015) conducted a study on the effects of air pollution on public health in urban areas, providing valuable insights into the detrimental impacts of pollutants on respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) explored the relationship between environmental factors and online search behavior, uncovering intriguing connections between air quality and internet queries. These serious scholars have paved the way for our whimsical expedition into the correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'.

Turning to sources that offer a more offbeat perspective on these peculiar topics, "The Air I Breathe: A Memoir of Urban Pollution" by Fresh Air explores the comical yet alarming anecdotes of living in heavily polluted cities, weaving in elements of slapstick humor amid grave environmental concerns. On the other hand, "The Art of Freefall: A Skydiving Odyssey" by A. Drop and "Plummeting from the Sky: The Thrilling Tales of Skydiving Escapades" by E. Parachute offer gripping narratives that imbue the mundane act of plummeting from the sky with a sense of lighthearted adventure.

In the realm of fiction, books such as "Gone with the Wind, But Not Really: A Tale of Air Pollution" by M. Arlowe and "The Skydiving Detective: A Parachuting Puzzler" by S. Sleuth add an element of whimsy to our scholarly pursuit, blurring the lines between sober research and storytelling. While diverging from rigorous academic discourse, these literary works infuse our staid investigation with a dash of playful absurdity.

Nestled within the digital realm, the internet meme "Distracted Skydiver" elucidates the precarious nature of multitasking, offering a humorous yet cautionary tale that mirrors the unexpected nature of our research findings. Likewise, the viral sensation "Pollution Panda" serves as a peculiar yet endearing mascot of environmental consciousness, encapsulating the whimsical juxtaposition of serious environmental concerns and the lighter side of advocacy.

As we march further into this zany expedition, it becomes abundantly clear that the seemingly disparate realms of air pollution and skydiving mishaps have coalesced in a manner that tickles the fancy of both scholarship and merriment. With this arsenal of offbeat perspectives and scholarly foundations, we are armed to embark on a riotous escapade through the correlation between pollutants and parachutes in Greenville, North Carolina. So, fasten your seatbelts – or should we say parachute harnesses – as we dive headfirst into this jocular journey!


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2012

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]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
As researchers, we are often accustomed to uncovering profound connections and unraveling complex phenomena. However, every now and then, a truly peculiar correlation emerges that leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment. Such is the case with the unlikely intertwining of air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. It's a classic case of "What in the world?" meets "Wait, why does this even exist?" Our investigation aims to shed light on this enigmatic relationship and unearth the peculiar parallels between pollutants and parachutes.
The interplay between air quality and skydiving mishaps might seem as incongruous as mixing oil and water, but hey, stranger things have happened, right? Armed with a tidily manicured statistical toolkit and an insatiable curiosity, we delved into the data like intrepid explorers, ready to uncover the unexpected treasures within. And boy, did we stumble upon quite the unique gem! Who knew that the whimsical world of research could lead us down a rabbit hole that's as surprising as finding a Labrador retriever hosting a physics lecture?
To add some scientific tidbits to our zany journey, we amassed thorough data from the Environmental Protection Agency to gauge the air pollution levels in Greenville, while simultaneously prowling the digital realm for the frequency of searches related to skydiving accidents using the omnipotent Google Trends. Our zany adventure through statistics and SpongeBob memes led us to a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and a p-value that brought tears of statistical significance to our eyes, all for the period spanning from 2004 to 2012. We've taken an amusement park ride through the whimsical complexities of this correlation, all in the noble pursuit of scientific enlightenment and a chuckle or two along the way.
Through this offbeat expedition, we hope to not only entertain our fellow researchers and readers but also prompt a moment of contemplation. After all, who would have thought that the whimsical dance of pollutants in the air and the alluring allure of skydiving mishaps could come together to form such a captivating duo? The world of research is undoubtedly an absurdly enchanting place, and this quirky correlation serves as a lighthearted reminder of the wondrous discoveries that await us, often in the unlikeliest of places. So buckle up and strap on your parachutes, dear reader, for we're about to take a wild leap into the realm of research oddities!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

METHODOLOGY

As researchers, we donned our lab coats and equipped ourselves with our fantastical statistical wands to conjure up the methodology befitting such an offbeat investigation. Picture us, wielding our mouse and keyboard like sorcerers, ready to cast spells of data collection and statistical analysis.

To commence our whimsical adventure, we scoured the expanse of the internet - a realm known for housing both the profound and the preposterous - to gather data from a multitude of sources. While we delved into the depths of cyberspace, our primary repositories of knowledge were the treasure troves known as the Environmental Protection Agency and the wondrous oracle that Google Trends proved to be.

With a fervor that would make a sloth on caffeine appear frenetic, we diligently extracted data on air pollution levels in Greenville, North Carolina from the noble Environmental Protection Agency. After carefully polishing our coding capes, we arranged this data to form a comprehensive record spanning the years of 2004 to 2012, ready to unveil the whimsical dances of pollutants in the air over time.

Meanwhile, our internet odyssey led us to the enigmatic universe of Google Trends, where we embarked on a quest for search interest in the curious curiosity that is 'skydiving accident'. Like pioneers navigating uncharted territories, we accrued a rich dataset of search frequencies, and every bit of information was treated like a rare gem dripping with statistical potential.

Now, it wouldn't be a proper scientific escapade without grappling with the statistical beasts known as correlation coefficients and p-values. Armed with our trusty abacuses and an arsenal of statistical tools, we set out to unravel the mysteries behind the interplay of air pollution and skydiving mishaps. The software at our disposal invoked a sense of awe akin to uncovering a hidden treasure chest, for it bestowed upon us a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and a p-value that would make even the staunchest statistics enthusiast squeal with delight - all boasting a confidence level with a p < 0.01.

As our journey through the realm of peculiar correlations drew to a close, we stood in awe of the improbable yet exhilarating voyage we had embarked upon. The methodology may have been convoluted and laden with whimsy, but it led us to a treasure trove of insight into the connection between air pollution in Greenville and the peculiar interest in skydiving accidents. It was a scientific odyssey laced with giggles and statistical wizardry, reminding us that even the most peculiar pairings can lead to profound discoveries in the cosmos of research.

And so, dear reader, with the methodology akin to an elaborate dance of whimsy and wanderlust, we hope to have laid bare the surreal yet delightful process that birthed our quirky correlation study.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2012, you found a correlation 0.8659463, r-squared of 0.7498630, 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]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
As researchers, we are often accustomed to uncovering profound connections and unraveling complex phenomena. However, every now and then, a truly peculiar correlation emerges that leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment. Such is the case with the unlikely intertwining of air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. It's a classic case of "What in the world?" meets "Wait, why does this even exist?" Our investigation aims to shed light on this enigmatic relationship and unearth the peculiar parallels between pollutants and parachutes.
The interplay between air quality and skydiving mishaps might seem as incongruous as mixing oil and water, but hey, stranger things have happened, right? Armed with a tidily manicured statistical toolkit and an insatiable curiosity, we delved into the data like intrepid explorers, ready to uncover the unexpected treasures within. And boy, did we stumble upon quite the unique gem! Who knew that the whimsical world of research could lead us down a rabbit hole that's as surprising as finding a Labrador retriever hosting a physics lecture?
To add some scientific tidbits to our zany journey, we amassed thorough data from the Environmental Protection Agency to gauge the air pollution levels in Greenville, while simultaneously prowling the digital realm for the frequency of searches related to skydiving accidents using the omnipotent Google Trends. Our zany adventure through statistics and SpongeBob memes led us to a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and a p-value that brought tears of statistical significance to our eyes, all for the period spanning from 2004 to 2012. We've taken an amusement park ride through the whimsical complexities of this correlation, all in the noble pursuit of scientific enlightenment and a chuckle or two along the way.
Through this offbeat expedition, we hope to not only entertain our fellow researchers and readers but also prompt a moment of contemplation. After all, who would have thought that the whimsical dance of pollutants in the air and the alluring allure of skydiving mishaps could come together to form such a captivating duo? The world of research is undoubtedly an absurdly enchanting place, and this quirky correlation serves as a lighthearted reminder of the wondrous discoveries that await us, often in the unlikeliest of places. So buckle up and strap on your parachutes, dear reader, for we're about to take a wild leap into the realm of research oddities!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our investigation revealed a positively quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Our statistical analysis unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two seemingly unrelated variables. With an r-squared value of 0.7498630 and a p-value of less than 0.01, our findings toss aside any doubts about the robustness of this peculiar connection. It's as if the air pollution and skydiving mishaps were in cahoots, conspiring to captivate our attention and elicit a collective, "Well, isn't that something?"

Figure 1 showcases our scatterplot, serving as a visual testament to the intriguing bond we uncovered. The plot vividly illustrates the strong, almost comically tight clustering of data points, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the correlation isn't just a flight of fancy but a bona fide statistical oddity. The graph's whimsical portrayal of the relationship between air pollution and skydiving accident searches is sure to raise a few eyebrows and perhaps even elicit an amused guffaw or two from the esteemed readers.

In summary, our research has unearthed a correlation that prompts us to ponder the mystical and perplexing intertwining of pollutants and parachutes. It's a testament to the delightful unpredictability of the research world, where even the most unconventional pairings can spark new insights and elicit a chuckle or two. Our findings not only provide a light-hearted twist to the typically serious realm of academic inquiry but also emphasize the importance of exploring the unexpected with an open mind and a twinkle in our statistical eyes.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith et al. (2015) conducted a study on the effects of air pollution on public health in urban areas, providing valuable insights into the detrimental impacts of pollutants on respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) explored the relationship between environmental factors and online search behavior, uncovering intriguing connections between air quality and internet queries. These serious scholars have paved the way for our whimsical expedition into the correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'.
Turning to sources that offer a more offbeat perspective on these peculiar topics, "The Air I Breathe: A Memoir of Urban Pollution" by Fresh Air explores the comical yet alarming anecdotes of living in heavily polluted cities, weaving in elements of slapstick humor amid grave environmental concerns. On the other hand, "The Art of Freefall: A Skydiving Odyssey" by A. Drop and "Plummeting from the Sky: The Thrilling Tales of Skydiving Escapades" by E. Parachute offer gripping narratives that imbue the mundane act of plummeting from the sky with a sense of lighthearted adventure.
In the realm of fiction, books such as "Gone with the Wind, But Not Really: A Tale of Air Pollution" by M. Arlowe and "The Skydiving Detective: A Parachuting Puzzler" by S. Sleuth add an element of whimsy to our scholarly pursuit, blurring the lines between sober research and storytelling. While diverging from rigorous academic discourse, these literary works infuse our staid investigation with a dash of playful absurdity.
Nestled within the digital realm, the internet meme "Distracted Skydiver" elucidates the precarious nature of multitasking, offering a humorous yet cautionary tale that mirrors the unexpected nature of our research findings. Likewise, the viral sensation "Pollution Panda" serves as a peculiar yet endearing mascot of environmental consciousness, encapsulating the whimsical juxtaposition of serious environmental concerns and the lighter side of advocacy.
As we march further into this zany expedition, it becomes abundantly clear that the seemingly disparate realms of air pollution and skydiving mishaps have coalesced in a manner that tickles the fancy of both scholarship and merriment. With this arsenal of offbeat perspectives and scholarly foundations, we are armed to embark on a riotous escapade through the correlation between pollutants and parachutes in Greenville, North Carolina. So, fasten your seatbelts – or should we say parachute harnesses – as we dive headfirst into this jocular journey!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation revealed a positively quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Our statistical analysis unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two seemingly unrelated variables. With an r-squared value of 0.7498630 and a p-value of less than 0.01, our findings toss aside any doubts about the robustness of this peculiar connection. It's as if the air pollution and skydiving mishaps were in cahoots, conspiring to captivate our attention and elicit a collective, "Well, isn't that something?"
Figure 1 showcases our scatterplot, serving as a visual testament to the intriguing bond we uncovered. The plot vividly illustrates the strong, almost comically tight clustering of data points, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the correlation isn't just a flight of fancy but a bona fide statistical oddity. The graph's whimsical portrayal of the relationship between air pollution and skydiving accident searches is sure to raise a few eyebrows and perhaps even elicit an amused guffaw or two from the esteemed readers.
In summary, our research has unearthed a correlation that prompts us to ponder the mystical and perplexing intertwining of pollutants and parachutes. It's a testament to the delightful unpredictability of the research world, where even the most unconventional pairings can spark new insights and elicit a chuckle or two. Our findings not only provide a light-hearted twist to the typically serious realm of academic inquiry but also emphasize the importance of exploring the unexpected with an open mind and a twinkle in our statistical eyes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our investigation into the peculiar parallels between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina, and Google searches for 'skydiving accident' has indeed provided a fair share of mirth and marvel. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 echoes the cries of 'Eureka!' as it validates the whimsical convergence of these seemingly unrelated variables. As we reflect on our results, it's hard not to conjure an image of air pollutants whispering to each other, "Let's give these researchers something to parachute into!"

Our amusing observation of this correlation, contrary to being a mere statistical anomaly, finds unexpected support in the works of Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018), who laid the groundwork for exploring the whimsical interplay between environmental influences and behavioral responses. Their serious pursuits have inadvertently paved the way for our venture into this comical connection. It's as if they unwittingly handed us the key to a treasure trove of statistical levity!

In a nod to our literature review, the saga of "Pollution Panda" seems to have found a tangible counterpart in our scatterplot, playfully nudging at the jolly coexistence of serious environmental concerns and the universal appeal of unpredictable correlations. The 'Distracted Skydiver' meme would undoubtedly find kinship in our statistical plot, serving as a whimsical yet on-point metaphor for the fascinating grip that our correlation exerts on the undivided attention of researchers and readers alike.

As we consider the wider implications of our whimsically robust findings, it becomes evident that this oddity isn't just a statistical coincidence but a testament to the capricious nature of research itself. Our results tiptoe into the realm of surreptitiously amusing discoveries, challenging the solemn expectations of academic inquiry and nudging the proverbial elbow of scholarly discourse.

In essence, our expedition into the offbeat duo of pollutants and parachutes in Greenville, North Carolina, serves as a lighthearted reminder of the unpredictable adventures that research can offer. It's a testament to the fact that even in the most unconventional pairings, there lies the potential for profound insights and perhaps a good-natured laugh or two. So, in the spirit of statistical mischief, let us embrace the unexpected with open arms and statistical eyes ablaze with merriment!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
As researchers, we are often accustomed to uncovering profound connections and unraveling complex phenomena. However, every now and then, a truly peculiar correlation emerges that leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment. Such is the case with the unlikely intertwining of air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. It's a classic case of "What in the world?" meets "Wait, why does this even exist?" Our investigation aims to shed light on this enigmatic relationship and unearth the peculiar parallels between pollutants and parachutes.
The interplay between air quality and skydiving mishaps might seem as incongruous as mixing oil and water, but hey, stranger things have happened, right? Armed with a tidily manicured statistical toolkit and an insatiable curiosity, we delved into the data like intrepid explorers, ready to uncover the unexpected treasures within. And boy, did we stumble upon quite the unique gem! Who knew that the whimsical world of research could lead us down a rabbit hole that's as surprising as finding a Labrador retriever hosting a physics lecture?
To add some scientific tidbits to our zany journey, we amassed thorough data from the Environmental Protection Agency to gauge the air pollution levels in Greenville, while simultaneously prowling the digital realm for the frequency of searches related to skydiving accidents using the omnipotent Google Trends. Our zany adventure through statistics and SpongeBob memes led us to a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and a p-value that brought tears of statistical significance to our eyes, all for the period spanning from 2004 to 2012. We've taken an amusement park ride through the whimsical complexities of this correlation, all in the noble pursuit of scientific enlightenment and a chuckle or two along the way.
Through this offbeat expedition, we hope to not only entertain our fellow researchers and readers but also prompt a moment of contemplation. After all, who would have thought that the whimsical dance of pollutants in the air and the alluring allure of skydiving mishaps could come together to form such a captivating duo? The world of research is undoubtedly an absurdly enchanting place, and this quirky correlation serves as a lighthearted reminder of the wondrous discoveries that await us, often in the unlikeliest of places. So buckle up and strap on your parachutes, dear reader, for we're about to take a wild leap into the realm of research oddities!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation revealed a positively quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Our statistical analysis unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two seemingly unrelated variables. With an r-squared value of 0.7498630 and a p-value of less than 0.01, our findings toss aside any doubts about the robustness of this peculiar connection. It's as if the air pollution and skydiving mishaps were in cahoots, conspiring to captivate our attention and elicit a collective, "Well, isn't that something?"
Figure 1 showcases our scatterplot, serving as a visual testament to the intriguing bond we uncovered. The plot vividly illustrates the strong, almost comically tight clustering of data points, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the correlation isn't just a flight of fancy but a bona fide statistical oddity. The graph's whimsical portrayal of the relationship between air pollution and skydiving accident searches is sure to raise a few eyebrows and perhaps even elicit an amused guffaw or two from the esteemed readers.
In summary, our research has unearthed a correlation that prompts us to ponder the mystical and perplexing intertwining of pollutants and parachutes. It's a testament to the delightful unpredictability of the research world, where even the most unconventional pairings can spark new insights and elicit a chuckle or two. Our findings not only provide a light-hearted twist to the typically serious realm of academic inquiry but also emphasize the importance of exploring the unexpected with an open mind and a twinkle in our statistical eyes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, we've uncovered a correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident' that's as unexpected as finding a pineapple on a pizza. Our thorough statistical analysis, peppered with a dash of whimsy and a hint of scientific intrigue, has painted a comical yet thought-provoking picture of this peculiar pairing. It's as though the universe decided to toss a coin and have air pollutants and parachute mishaps come up matching.

Our findings have left us marveling at the mysteriously harmonious dance of pollutants and parachutes, prompting us to question the laws of research physics and statistics in the most entertaining way possible. The relationship we've unraveled is akin to stumbling upon a unicorn in a field of statistical roses – improbable, yet undeniably captivating.

As we wrap up our zany expedition into this curious correlation, we can't help but chuckle at the bizarreness of scientific inquiry. The research world is truly a place where the unexpected reigns supreme, and this study stands as a lighthearted testament to that delightful fact.

In the spirit of scientific whimsy, we assert that no further research is required in this area. After all, when the whimsical world of air pollution meets the wacky domain of parachute mishaps, who's to say what other oddities might await? It's like attempting to solve a crossword puzzle with a periodic table – sometimes, the most tantalizing mysteries lie in the most delightfully unusual pairings.

So, let's bid farewell to this uproarious correlation and turn our attention to the next inexplicable adventure that awaits us in the realm of research. After all, who knows what other statistical shenanigans might be lurking in the shadows, ready to surprise and charm us with their eccentricity?


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 The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Quirks


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 The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Zany Zoological Zaniness


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 The Peculiar Parallels: Pollutants and Parachutes in Greenville with an abstract of This paper examines the quirky correlation between air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina and Google searches for 'skydiving accident'. Despite the seemingly unrelated nature of these two subjects, our research team used data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to find a surprisingly strong positive association. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8659463 and p < 0.01 for the period from 2004 to 2012. The paper delves into the whimsical complexities of this connection, providing an amusing yet insightful exploration of the interplay between environmental factors and internet search trends. The study not only sheds light on this curious relationship, but also serves as a lighthearted reminder that even the most unexpected pairings can lead to enlightening discoveries in the world of research.

ChatGPT:

air pollution, environmental factors, Google searches, Greenville, North Carolina, skydiving accident, correlation coefficient, Google Trends, EPA data, unexpected pairings, research findings

*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 Greenville, North Carolina
Detailed data title: Percentage of days 'unhealthy' or worse air quality in Greenville, NC
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina

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

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'skydiving accident'

Correlation r = 0.8659463 (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 = 0.7498630 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 75% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'skydiving accident') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina) over the 9 years from 2004 through 2012.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0025. 0.0025410343678693690000000000
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 0.87 in 0.25% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 394 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 8 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 8 because we have two variables measured over a period of 9 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.

[ 0.47, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420052006200720082009201020112012
Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina (Bad air quality days)00.003861000.003846150000.00393701
Google searches for 'skydiving accident' (Rel. search volume)17.7524.583316.916713.416721.416715.514.916719.916723.8333




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. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. 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([0,0.003861,0,0,0.00384615,0,0,0,0.00393701,])
array_2 = np.array([17.75,24.5833,16.9167,13.4167,21.4167,15.5,14.9167,19.9167,23.8333,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Greenville, North Carolina"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'skydiving accident'"

# 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?

Bravo! Your evaluation rocks!


Correlation ID: 1310 · Black Variable ID: 21609 · Red Variable ID: 1409
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0