Download png, svg
AI explanation
The smog wafted all the way to Norway, providing a nostalgic scent of city life. This prompted the Norwegians to crank up their classic car collection for a taste of urban air without the high fuel costs.
Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a surreal cityscape merging Prineville, Oregon and Norway with a hazy, smokey atmosphere. On one side, showcase the rugged brutalist architecture of Prineville amidst the faint smoke, while on the other, depict the sleek, modern buildings of Norway with cars speeding by, leaving trails of exhaust fumes in their wake. The composition should evoke a sense of contrast between the two environments. 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: Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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: Brutalism Hyper-realistic Steampunk a Polaroid photo Data cyber art
ChatGPT: Brutalism
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 Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Prineville, Oregon, the air feels hazy with a faint smell of smoke lingering from nearby wildfires. Meanwhile, in Norway, cars zoom past, leaving behind a trail of exhaust fumes.
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: [ Brutalism ] and depicting this scene: In Prineville, Oregon, the air feels hazy with a faint smell of smoke lingering from nearby wildfires. Meanwhile, in Norway, cars zoom past, leaving behind a trail of exhaust fumes. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a surreal cityscape merging Prineville, Oregon and Norway with a hazy, smokey atmosphere. On one side, showcase the rugged brutalist architecture of Prineville amidst the faint smoke, while on the other, depict the sleek, modern buildings of Norway with cars speeding by, leaving trails of exhaust fumes in their wake. The composition should evoke a sense of contrast between the two environments.
*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.
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 Prineville, Oregon caused Fossil fuel use in Norway to increase.
AI academic paper
 |
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty The Journal of Environmental Economics and Emission Management Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2021.
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]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The pursuit of understanding the intricate web of environmental interdependencies has been an ongoing endeavor in the field of environmental research. The present study aims to delve into the potential linkage between suboptimal air quality in the picturesque town of Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel consumption in the far-off land of Norway. At first glance, one may be inclined to dismiss any connection between these two locations as a mere flight of fancy, but as we shall see, the data tell a different story.
The allure of Prineville, with its charming small-town ambiance, is juxtaposed against the industrial might of Norway, a country known for its lucrative petroleum industry. Indeed, one might ponder what could possibly tie together the cozy hamlet nestled in the high desert plateau and the expansive fjords of Scandinavia - but prepare to be surprised.
As we wade into the depths of data and analysis, we will unearth a correlation that transcends geographical boundaries and whispers of an unseen connection between these distinct locales. While the notion may initially seem far-fetched, the statistical evidence and compelling findings offer a peculiar perspective on the far-reaching effects of human activities.
In this light, we invite you to accompany us on this voyage of discovery, where we unravel the intertwined fates of Prineville and Norway, all the while savoring the quirkiness of global environmental engagements.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The pursuit of understanding the intricate web of environmental interdependencies has been an ongoing endeavor in the field of environmental research. The present study aims to delve into the potential linkage between suboptimal air quality in the picturesque town of Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel consumption in the far-off land of Norway. At first glance, one may be inclined to dismiss any connection between these two locations as a mere flight of fancy, but as we shall see, the data tell a different story.
The allure of Prineville, with its charming small-town ambiance, is juxtaposed against the industrial might of Norway, a country known for its lucrative petroleum industry. Indeed, one might ponder what could possibly tie together the cozy hamlet nestled in the high desert plateau and the expansive fjords of Scandinavia - but prepare to be surprised.
As we wade into the depths of data and analysis, we will unearth a correlation that transcends geographical boundaries and whispers of an unseen connection between these distinct locales. While the notion may initially seem far-fetched, the statistical evidence and compelling findings offer a peculiar perspective on the far-reaching effects of human activities.
In this light, we invite you to accompany us on this voyage of discovery, where we unravel the intertwined fates of Prineville and Norway, all the while savoring the quirkiness of global environmental engagements.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find that the connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway has been an underexplored area of environmental research. A review of existing literature reveals a paucity of studies directly addressing this peculiar interrelation. However, Smith et al. (2018) touched upon the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption in remote geographic locations, albeit without a specific focus on the juxtaposition of Prineville and Norway. Similarly, Doe's seminal work on global air pollution dynamics shed light on regional disparities but failed to delve into the quirky connection between these two locales (Doe, 2015). Jones, in an exhaustive analysis of atmospheric pollution patterns, also tangentially hinted at the potential interplay of environmental factors across distant regions, yet fell short of embarking on this particular exploration (Jones, 2020).
Moving beyond direct empirical studies, several valuable non-fiction sources have offered tangential insights into the broader themes surrounding air quality and fossil fuel usage. "The Air We Breathe: A Global Perspective" by Environmental Advocate delves into the diverse challenges faced by communities worldwide, thereby laying a foundation for understanding the intricacies of air quality concerns (Advocate, 2017). Additionally, "Fueling the Future: A Comparative Analysis of Energy Policies" by Policy Analyst provides an in-depth examination of fossil fuel consumption trends, shedding light on the socio-economic undercurrents that may underpin the Prineville-Norway connection (Analyst, 2019).
In the realm of fiction, the captivating world of literature offers subtle cues and imaginative representations that occasionally traverse the boundaries of reality. The novels "Smoke Signals in the Fjords" by Fictional Author and "Whispers in the High Desert" by Imaginative Writer capture the essence of environmental mystique and carry an air of whimsy that belies potential parallels with our current investigation (Author, 2016; Writer, 2018). Furthermore, the board game "Airborne Alliances" simulates global environmental negotiations, playfully hinting at the intricate web of interconnected factors that could echo the nuanced relationship between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel activities.
While the literature reviewed thus far offers a nuanced backdrop to our investigation, it is evident that the synthesis of such divergent sources invites a curious blend of perspectives. With the groundwork laid, the subsequent analysis of empirical evidence promises an intellectually stimulating foray into the unexpected entanglement of far-flung environmental phenomena.
And that's the review! Thank you for taking this quirky journey with me.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2021
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]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The pursuit of understanding the intricate web of environmental interdependencies has been an ongoing endeavor in the field of environmental research. The present study aims to delve into the potential linkage between suboptimal air quality in the picturesque town of Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel consumption in the far-off land of Norway. At first glance, one may be inclined to dismiss any connection between these two locations as a mere flight of fancy, but as we shall see, the data tell a different story.
The allure of Prineville, with its charming small-town ambiance, is juxtaposed against the industrial might of Norway, a country known for its lucrative petroleum industry. Indeed, one might ponder what could possibly tie together the cozy hamlet nestled in the high desert plateau and the expansive fjords of Scandinavia - but prepare to be surprised.
As we wade into the depths of data and analysis, we will unearth a correlation that transcends geographical boundaries and whispers of an unseen connection between these distinct locales. While the notion may initially seem far-fetched, the statistical evidence and compelling findings offer a peculiar perspective on the far-reaching effects of human activities.
In this light, we invite you to accompany us on this voyage of discovery, where we unravel the intertwined fates of Prineville and Norway, all the while savoring the quirkiness of global environmental engagements.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Data Collection:
The data utilized in this study were acquired from various sources, predominantly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). These sources provided a comprehensive repository of information pertaining to air quality measurements in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel consumption in Norway, spanning the temporal horizon from 1980 to 2021. Additionally, data from other reputable sources were consulted to ensure the robustness and heterogeneity of the dataset.
To procure information on Prineville's air quality, we accessed ambient air monitoring data, pollutant concentration levels, and meteorological variables from the EPA's Air Quality System. Notably, this entailed sifting through copious records, akin to finding a needle in a haystack - except in this case, the needle bore the scent of diesel emissions.
Simultaneously, the EIA's treasure trove of statistical reports on Norway's fossil fuel utilization provided insights into the country's oil, gas, and coal consumption patterns. These data were combed through with a diligence that rivaled the precision of a watchmaker, as we meticulously traced the intricate pathways of energy flow from the North Sea to homes and industries in Norway.
Data Analysis:
The data analysis process commenced with a meticulous cleansing phase, where outlying data points, akin to mischievous outliers at a gathering, were identified and pruned from the dataset. Subsequently, rigorous statistical analyses were conducted to ascertain the covariance and correlation between Prineville's air quality indicators and Norway's fossil fuel usage metrics.
The correlation analysis was akin to a celestial dance, as we sought to unveil the hidden synchrony between the two seemingly disparate entities. The Pearson correlation coefficient and accompanying significance levels were calculated to quantify the strength and direction of the observed relationship. Furthermore, various robustness checks and sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the veracity of the findings - after all, we wouldn't want our conclusions to crumble like a poorly constructed sandcastle.
Discussion of Findings:
The results of the data analyses revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8975637, with a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a robust statistical relationship between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel utilization. This unexpected nexus between a small town in Oregon and a Nordic powerhouse poses intriguing questions, prompting contemplation on the unseen threads that weave together the tapestry of global environmental interactions.
Overall, the methodology employed in this research endeavor was designed to meticulously unearth the underlying connections between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel use, while injecting a dash of whimsy and intrigue into the exploration of these intertwined environmental destinies.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration .
For the time period 1980 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.8975637, r-squared of 0.8056206, 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]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The pursuit of understanding the intricate web of environmental interdependencies has been an ongoing endeavor in the field of environmental research. The present study aims to delve into the potential linkage between suboptimal air quality in the picturesque town of Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel consumption in the far-off land of Norway. At first glance, one may be inclined to dismiss any connection between these two locations as a mere flight of fancy, but as we shall see, the data tell a different story.
The allure of Prineville, with its charming small-town ambiance, is juxtaposed against the industrial might of Norway, a country known for its lucrative petroleum industry. Indeed, one might ponder what could possibly tie together the cozy hamlet nestled in the high desert plateau and the expansive fjords of Scandinavia - but prepare to be surprised.
As we wade into the depths of data and analysis, we will unearth a correlation that transcends geographical boundaries and whispers of an unseen connection between these distinct locales. While the notion may initially seem far-fetched, the statistical evidence and compelling findings offer a peculiar perspective on the far-reaching effects of human activities.
In this light, we invite you to accompany us on this voyage of discovery, where we unravel the intertwined fates of Prineville and Norway, all the while savoring the quirkiness of global environmental engagements.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the study showcase a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel use in Norway for the time period of 1980 to 2021. The relationship between these seemingly unrelated locations has been quantified with an r-squared value of 0.8056206, indicating that approximately 80.56% of the variability in air quality in Prineville can be explained by the fossil fuel use in Norway. The probability value (p < 0.01) lends further credence to the statistically significant association between the two variables, reassuring us that this connection is not simply a figment of our imagination.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot illustrates a clear and compelling pattern, reinforcing the strength of the observed correlation. One cannot help but marvel at the synchronicity between these geographically distant locales – a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of our world, albeit in an unexpected and whimsical manner.
The findings not only underscore the importance of scrutinizing the global repercussions of human activities but also infuse a dash of whimsy into the otherwise serious realm of environmental inquiry. The interplay between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel use invites us to contemplate the interconnectedness of disparate regions, encouraging a lighthearted perspective on the far-reaching impacts of human endeavors.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find that the connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway has been an underexplored area of environmental research. A review of existing literature reveals a paucity of studies directly addressing this peculiar interrelation. However, Smith et al. (2018) touched upon the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption in remote geographic locations, albeit without a specific focus on the juxtaposition of Prineville and Norway. Similarly, Doe's seminal work on global air pollution dynamics shed light on regional disparities but failed to delve into the quirky connection between these two locales (Doe, 2015). Jones, in an exhaustive analysis of atmospheric pollution patterns, also tangentially hinted at the potential interplay of environmental factors across distant regions, yet fell short of embarking on this particular exploration (Jones, 2020).
Moving beyond direct empirical studies, several valuable non-fiction sources have offered tangential insights into the broader themes surrounding air quality and fossil fuel usage. "The Air We Breathe: A Global Perspective" by Environmental Advocate delves into the diverse challenges faced by communities worldwide, thereby laying a foundation for understanding the intricacies of air quality concerns (Advocate, 2017). Additionally, "Fueling the Future: A Comparative Analysis of Energy Policies" by Policy Analyst provides an in-depth examination of fossil fuel consumption trends, shedding light on the socio-economic undercurrents that may underpin the Prineville-Norway connection (Analyst, 2019).
In the realm of fiction, the captivating world of literature offers subtle cues and imaginative representations that occasionally traverse the boundaries of reality. The novels "Smoke Signals in the Fjords" by Fictional Author and "Whispers in the High Desert" by Imaginative Writer capture the essence of environmental mystique and carry an air of whimsy that belies potential parallels with our current investigation (Author, 2016; Writer, 2018). Furthermore, the board game "Airborne Alliances" simulates global environmental negotiations, playfully hinting at the intricate web of interconnected factors that could echo the nuanced relationship between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel activities.
While the literature reviewed thus far offers a nuanced backdrop to our investigation, it is evident that the synthesis of such divergent sources invites a curious blend of perspectives. With the groundwork laid, the subsequent analysis of empirical evidence promises an intellectually stimulating foray into the unexpected entanglement of far-flung environmental phenomena.
And that's the review! Thank you for taking this quirky journey with me.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the study showcase a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel use in Norway for the time period of 1980 to 2021. The relationship between these seemingly unrelated locations has been quantified with an r-squared value of 0.8056206, indicating that approximately 80.56% of the variability in air quality in Prineville can be explained by the fossil fuel use in Norway. The probability value (p < 0.01) lends further credence to the statistically significant association between the two variables, reassuring us that this connection is not simply a figment of our imagination.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot illustrates a clear and compelling pattern, reinforcing the strength of the observed correlation. One cannot help but marvel at the synchronicity between these geographically distant locales – a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of our world, albeit in an unexpected and whimsical manner.
The findings not only underscore the importance of scrutinizing the global repercussions of human activities but also infuse a dash of whimsy into the otherwise serious realm of environmental inquiry. The interplay between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel use invites us to contemplate the interconnectedness of disparate regions, encouraging a lighthearted perspective on the far-reaching impacts of human endeavors.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of the current study lend empirical support to the somewhat whimsical notion of a connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and the prevailing fossil fuel use in Norway. The robust correlation coefficient obtained between these seemingly unrelated locations underscores the importance of considering the broader global reverberations of human activities. The magnitude of the r-squared value further corroborates the substantial explanatory power of Norway's fossil fuel utilization in elucidating the variability in air quality in Prineville, Oregon. Thus, our findings align with the existing literature, particularly the fictional narratives and board game references, which hinted at the possible interplay between these disparate locales.
It is intriguing to consider the potential mechanisms underlying this unexpected synchrony. While our study is limited to establishing the statistical relationship between air quality in Prineville and Norway's fossil fuel consumption, it is tempting to speculate on the underlying factors that contribute to this connection. It is reminiscent of the interconnectedness depicted in "Airborne Alliances," where global environmental negotiations are simulated – a nod to the multifaceted complexities that underpin the interdependence of environmental factors.
Moreover, the study's findings resonate with the broader discourse on global environmental interdependencies, as championed by "The Air We Breathe: A Global Perspective" by Environmental Advocate and "Fueling the Future: A Comparative Analysis of Energy Policies" by Policy Analyst. These non-empirical sources laid the groundwork for our investigation, shedding light on the complex web of environmental factors that transcend geographical boundaries. The substantial correlation identified in our empirical analysis adds a layer of empirical depth to the whimsical themes hinted at in these non-empirical sources.
The observed correlation between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel use not only underscores the need for concerted global environmental stewardship but also injects a lighthearted element into the discourse. This unexpected interplay between distant geographic regions serves as a gentle reminder of the intricate and often whimsical nature of environmental phenomena. It underscores the need to approach environmental research with an open mind, recognizing the potential for surprising connections that transcend conventional geographic and disciplinary boundaries.
In summary, the findings of this study offer empirical validation for the curious juxtaposition of Prineville and Norway, shedding light on the unexpected interconnectedness of seemingly disparate locales. The statistically significant relationship between air quality in Prineville and fossil fuel use in Norway adds a touch of whimsy to the otherwise serious discourse on environmental interdependencies, inviting further exploration into the unexpected reverberations of human activities across the globe.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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]]
Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
[[ABSTRACT]]
The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The pursuit of understanding the intricate web of environmental interdependencies has been an ongoing endeavor in the field of environmental research. The present study aims to delve into the potential linkage between suboptimal air quality in the picturesque town of Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel consumption in the far-off land of Norway. At first glance, one may be inclined to dismiss any connection between these two locations as a mere flight of fancy, but as we shall see, the data tell a different story.
The allure of Prineville, with its charming small-town ambiance, is juxtaposed against the industrial might of Norway, a country known for its lucrative petroleum industry. Indeed, one might ponder what could possibly tie together the cozy hamlet nestled in the high desert plateau and the expansive fjords of Scandinavia - but prepare to be surprised.
As we wade into the depths of data and analysis, we will unearth a correlation that transcends geographical boundaries and whispers of an unseen connection between these distinct locales. While the notion may initially seem far-fetched, the statistical evidence and compelling findings offer a peculiar perspective on the far-reaching effects of human activities.
In this light, we invite you to accompany us on this voyage of discovery, where we unravel the intertwined fates of Prineville and Norway, all the while savoring the quirkiness of global environmental engagements.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the study showcase a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and the prodigious fossil fuel use in Norway for the time period of 1980 to 2021. The relationship between these seemingly unrelated locations has been quantified with an r-squared value of 0.8056206, indicating that approximately 80.56% of the variability in air quality in Prineville can be explained by the fossil fuel use in Norway. The probability value (p < 0.01) lends further credence to the statistically significant association between the two variables, reassuring us that this connection is not simply a figment of our imagination.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot illustrates a clear and compelling pattern, reinforcing the strength of the observed correlation. One cannot help but marvel at the synchronicity between these geographically distant locales – a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of our world, albeit in an unexpected and whimsical manner.
The findings not only underscore the importance of scrutinizing the global repercussions of human activities but also infuse a dash of whimsy into the otherwise serious realm of environmental inquiry. The interplay between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel use invites us to contemplate the interconnectedness of disparate regions, encouraging a lighthearted perspective on the far-reaching impacts of human endeavors.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, the research findings successfully illuminate a remarkable correlation between less than favorable air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and the considerable use of fossil fuels in Norway. The robust correlation coefficient and high degree of statistical significance highlight the unexpected bond between these geographically distant locations. This study not only adds a whimsical twist to the understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also offers a fascinating perspective on the broader impact of human activities.
The results of this investigation suggest that the air quality in Prineville does not exist in a vacuum, figuratively speaking, and is rather intricately linked to the fossil fuel use in Norway. This unconventional connection serves as a reminder of the intricacies of global environmental dynamics and the often unpredictable outcomes of human endeavors. It is a testament to the interconnectedness of the world, where seemingly disparate entities can influence each other in surprising ways.
As we set our sights on the implications of these findings, it becomes apparent that even the most unassuming towns and thriving industrial hubs can share a peculiar bond. This study implores us to reconsider the far-reaching effects of human activities and prompts a chuckle at the unforeseen connections that can emerge in the environmental realm. After all, who would have thought that the air quality in a small Oregon town and the fossil fuel use in Norway could be entwined in such an intriguing manner?
It is our hope that this research not only advances our scholarly understanding but also provides a moment of amusement and curiosity in the otherwise serious discourse of environmental inquiry. With this, we confidently assert that no further research in this area is needed, as we have shed ample light on the whimsical interplay between Prineville's air quality and Norway's fossil fuel use.
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 Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Environmental Economics and Emission Management
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 Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Institute for Renewable Energy Policy and Geological Research
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 Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty with an abstract of The paper investigates the potential connection between less than ideal air quality in Prineville, Oregon, and fossil fuel use in Norway. Through the meticulous analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, a correlation coefficient of 0.8975637 with p < 0.01 for the time period spanning 1980 to 2021 was uncovered. Indeed, the findings reveal a surprising synchrony between the two seemingly disparate locations. The implications of this research not only contribute to advancing our understanding of global environmental interdependencies but also provide a whimsical perspective on the interconnectedness of vastly distinct geographic regions.
ChatGPT:
fossil fuel, air quality, Prineville Oregon, Norway, oil royalty, environmental protection agency, energy information administration, correlation coefficient, global environmental interdependencies, geographic regions interconnection
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Air pollution in Prineville, OregonDetailed data title: Percentage of days with moderate or worse air quality in Prineville, OR
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Prineville, Oregon
Fossil fuel use in Norway
Detailed data title: Total fossil fuel use in Norway in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Fossil fuel use in Norway
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 = 0.8056206 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Norway) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Prineville, Oregon) over the 42 years from 1980 through 2021.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 8.2E-16. 0.0000000000000008235203927085
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 0.9 in 8.2E-14% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,214,299,012,937,702 random variables You don't actually need 1 quadrillion 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 41 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 41 because we have two variables measured over a period of 42 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.
[ 0.82, 0.94 ] 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.
| 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | |
| Air pollution in Prineville, Oregon (Bad air quality days) | 8.72274 | 1.27389 | 3.42679 | 1.64474 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23.5616 | 15.3203 | 24.7191 | 21.6667 | 32.0548 | 21.3699 | 19.6133 | 18.1034 | 27.1709 | 20.9366 | 18.9041 | 18.6301 | 15.3425 |
| Fossil fuel use in Norway (Billion kWh) | 0.137 | 0.122 | 0.263 | 0.314 | 0.32 | 0.329 | 0.441 | 0.509 | 0.456 | 0.467 | 0.211 | 0.18 | 0.181 | 0.192 | 0.351 | 0.366 | 0.466 | 0.415 | 0.396 | 0.478 | 0.27448 | 0.32242 | 0.33182 | 0.4324 | 0.47752 | 0.4982 | 0.59878 | 0.87984 | 0.56964 | 4.10028 | 4.72914 | 4.30508 | 2.949 | 2.842 | 2.997 | 2.991 | 2.968 | 2.931 | 2.9583 | 2.69306 | 2.13867 | 1.23949 |
Why this works
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - Outlandish outliers: There are "outliers" in this data.
In concept, "outlier" just means "way different than the rest of your dataset." When calculating a correlation like this, they are particularly impactful because a single outlier can substantially increase your correlation.
For the purposes of this project, I counted a point as an outlier if it the residual was two standard deviations from the mean.
(This bullet point only shows up in the details page on charts that do, in fact, have outliers.)
They stand out on the scatterplot above: notice the dots that are far away from any other dots. I intentionally mishandeled outliers, which makes the correlation look extra strong.
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([8.72274,1.27389,3.42679,1.64474,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,23.5616,15.3203,24.7191,21.6667,32.0548,21.3699,19.6133,18.1034,27.1709,20.9366,18.9041,18.6301,15.3425,])
array_2 = np.array([0.137,0.122,0.263,0.314,0.32,0.329,0.441,0.509,0.456,0.467,0.211,0.18,0.181,0.192,0.351,0.366,0.466,0.415,0.396,0.478,0.27448,0.32242,0.33182,0.4324,0.47752,0.4982,0.59878,0.87984,0.56964,4.10028,4.72914,4.30508,2.949,2.842,2.997,2.991,2.968,2.931,2.9583,2.69306,2.13867,1.23949,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Prineville, Oregon"
array_2_name = "Fossil fuel use in Norway"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Air pollution in Prineville, Oregon
- Line chart for only Fossil fuel use in Norway
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Fossil Fuel Foil: Prineville's Air Quality and Norway's Oil Royalty
Thanks for being the explorer we needed!
Correlation ID: 1711 · Black Variable ID: 21090 · Red Variable ID: 23876
