about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,616 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name London and the second variable is Fossil fuel use in Norway.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the name London gained popularity, more parents felt inspired to travel to the bustling city for baby name ideas. This led to a surprising spike in flights from Norway, ultimately increasing the demand for fossil fuels to power these skyward journeys. It's a classic case of name admiration taking off and fueling the Norwegian connection to the name London!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie] Create a whimsical illustration of a nursery in Norway where miniature toy cars come to life. The toys should be shown soaring through the air, with babies named London delightfully playing with them. The room should be filled with a warm, soft glow and filled with the sounds of little engines revving up. Show hints of nostalgia, warmth, and playfulness, as well as the faint smell of gasoline in the air. Depict the surge in demand for these toys and the increase in production and consumption of fossil fuels in a subtle yet thought-provoking 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 variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Popularity of the first name London 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: Low poly An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie Symbolism Vaporwave Cyberpunk
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie

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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway, in the following situation: After serious research and analysis, it has been found that the surge in babies named London has caused a corresponding surge in demand for miniature toy cars in Norway, leading to an increase in the production and consumption of fossil fuels. It seems the name London is revving up a whole new generation of tiny drivers in Norway, creating a small-scale but impactful boom in the fossil fuel industry. It's like these kids are born with a real "drive" to play with toy cars, and as a result, the "petrol"-leum consumption in Norway is getting a little "tire"-some. Who would have thought that a popular name could have such far-reaching implications for the energy sector? It's like a "baby boom" that's fueling the demand for fossil fuels in a way no one could have "predict"ed. So, if you ever find yourself wondering about the connection between baby names and energy consumption, just remember: when it comes to the name London and fossil fuel use in Norway, it's all about sparking a "car"-azy demand for toy cars.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a nursery in Norway, miniature toy cars are flying off the shelves as babies named London play with them. The room is filled with the sounds of little engines revving up, and the air smells faintly of gasoline. The popularity of the name London has sparked a surge in demand for these toys, leading to an increase in the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] and depicting this scene: In a nursery in Norway, miniature toy cars are flying off the shelves as babies named London play with them. The room is filled with the sounds of little engines revving up, and the air smells faintly of gasoline. The popularity of the name London has sparked a surge in demand for these toys, leading to an increase in the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie] Create a whimsical illustration of a nursery in Norway where miniature toy cars come to life. The toys should be shown soaring through the air, with babies named London delightfully playing with them. The room should be filled with a warm, soft glow and filled with the sounds of little engines revving up. Show hints of nostalgia, warmth, and playfulness, as well as the faint smell of gasoline in the air. Depict the surge in demand for these toys and the increase in production and consumption of fossil fuels in a subtle yet thought-provoking 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 Popularity of the first name London caused Fossil fuel use in Norway to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection

The Journal of Scandinavian Energy Absurdities

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 silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. Make lots of 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection" presents a whimsical exploration of the unexpected relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the utilization of fossil fuels in Norway. While one might initially dismiss such a correlation as ludicrous or balderdash, our rigorous analysis of extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration has unveiled a surprising link that cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the world of academia, where serious faces and furrowed brows often reign supreme, our aim is to inject a dose of lightheartedness into the enthralling realm of statistical analysis and energy trends.

When pondering the connection between a moniker and the consumption of fossil fuels, one might understandably raise a perplexed eyebrow or two. After all, what could the name "London" possibly have to do with the burning of coal, oil, or gas in the chilly reaches of Norway? The very premise teeters on the edge of the absurd, inviting skepticism and eyebrow-raising that would make even the most stolid of researchers crack a smile.

Yet, as we dive headfirst into the data, what unfolds is a narrative of unforeseen correlations and curious coincidences that challenge our preconceived notions. The tangled web of nomenclature and energy trends gradually reveals an engrossing pattern that cannot be written off as mere happenstance. Prepare to be bewildered, amused, and perhaps even a little astounded as we unwrap the intriguing tale of the "London" and its dance with fossil fuels in the Norwegian landscape.

But do not be deceived; our journey through the labyrinth of data is not purely for the sake of amusement. The implications of our findings ripple far beyond the realm of mere mirth, paving the way for thought-provoking reflections on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena. Through our research, we strive to encourage an exploration of unconventional avenues and foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry, reminding ourselves that the most unexpected connections often hide in plain sight.

Join us as we meander through the twists and turns of this captivating study, where laughter and enlightenment intertwine in a dance of delightful discovery. By the end of our investigation, you may find yourself not only entertained but also enlightened on the peculiar bonds that tie together the worlds of names and energy consumption. So, buckle up and brace yourself for a trek into the realm of "fuelishness" that is sure to leave you both gasping for air and giggling at the marvels of statistical escapades!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection" presents a whimsical exploration of the unexpected relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the utilization of fossil fuels in Norway. While one might initially dismiss such a correlation as ludicrous or balderdash, our rigorous analysis of extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration has unveiled a surprising link that cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the world of academia, where serious faces and furrowed brows often reign supreme, our aim is to inject a dose of lightheartedness into the enthralling realm of statistical analysis and energy trends.
When pondering the connection between a moniker and the consumption of fossil fuels, one might understandably raise a perplexed eyebrow or two. After all, what could the name "London" possibly have to do with the burning of coal, oil, or gas in the chilly reaches of Norway? The very premise teeters on the edge of the absurd, inviting skepticism and eyebrow-raising that would make even the most stolid of researchers crack a smile.
Yet, as we dive headfirst into the data, what unfolds is a narrative of unforeseen correlations and curious coincidences that challenge our preconceived notions. The tangled web of nomenclature and energy trends gradually reveals an engrossing pattern that cannot be written off as mere happenstance. Prepare to be bewildered, amused, and perhaps even a little astounded as we unwrap the intriguing tale of the "London" and its dance with fossil fuels in the Norwegian landscape.
But do not be deceived; our journey through the labyrinth of data is not purely for the sake of amusement. The implications of our findings ripple far beyond the realm of mere mirth, paving the way for thought-provoking reflections on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena. Through our research, we strive to encourage an exploration of unconventional avenues and foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry, reminding ourselves that the most unexpected connections often hide in plain sight.
Join us as we meander through the twists and turns of this captivating study, where laughter and enlightenment intertwine in a dance of delightful discovery. By the end of our investigation, you may find yourself not only entertained but also enlightened on the peculiar bonds that tie together the worlds of names and energy consumption. So, buckle up and brace yourself for a trek into the realm of "fuelishness" that is sure to leave you both gasping for air and giggling at the marvels of statistical escapades!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The exploration of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the consumption of fossil fuels in Norway has long been a subject of intrigue within academic circles. Smith et al. (2010) first delved into the realm of unconventional correlations, challenging the traditional boundaries of nomenclature studies. Their initial foray into this uncharted territory laid the groundwork for subsequent researchers to follow, launching a cascade of investigations that seek to unravel the enigmatic ties between names and energy trends.

Doe and Jones (2015) further expanded on this line of inquiry, delving into the cultural significance and symbolic connotations of the name "London" in various regions. Their ethnomethodological approach offered valuable insights into the nuances of naming practices, illuminating the subtle threads that weave through the fabric of societal discourse. It is within this rich tapestry of naming conventions that the potential link to fossil fuel use in Norway begins to take shape, sprouting forth like a quirky wildflower amidst a field of statistical analysis.

In "Energy and Naming: Exploring Unconventional Correlations," the authors delve into the curious interplay between nomenclature and energy consumption, shedding light on the unexpected connections that lie beneath the surface. The whimsical hypotheses put forth in this seminal work set the stage for our present investigation, inviting us to embark on a spirited romp through the labyrinth of data in search of improbable associations and delightful revelations.

Turning our attention to the realm of non-fiction literature, the works of "The Energy Detective's Guide to Naming Quirks" by Renewable Watts and "Fuelish Follies: A Comical Compendium of Nomenclature Nonsense" by Sparky McPunster offer delightful glimpses into the playful side of naming conventions and energy trends. The interplay of humor and astute observations in these works serves as a refreshing reminder that scholarly pursuits need not always be somber affairs but can embrace whimsy and amusement.

On the fictional front, the likes of "The Name Game Conundrum" by Lexicon Lorelei and "Fossil Fuel Fables: A Tale of Names and Consumption" by Petro Novelenco beckon readers into a world where imagination runs wild and the boundaries of reality blur with whimsy. These imaginative narratives, while purely fictional in nature, provide a whimsical backdrop against which to contemplate the intersection of names and fossil fuel use in Norway.

In the realm of popular culture and internet memes, the enduring fascination with the name "London" and its potential ties to energy trends has manifested in the form of playful internet banter, with memes such as "London Calling: Fuel Edition" and "Fossil Fools and London Namesakes" capturing the imaginative musings of online communities. These lighthearted jests serve as a reminder that even the most unexpected connections can spark endless amusement and contemplative chatter in the virtual sphere.

As we navigate through this literature review, it becomes evident that the entwined realms of nomenclature, energy trends, and whimsical musings hold the potential for boundless amusement and scholarly inquiry. While the journey may have begun with raised eyebrows and perplexed skepticism, it is our hope that the culmination of this exploration will leave readers not only enlightened but also chuckling at the peculiarities of scholarly escapades. So, with a twinkle in our eyes and a playful spirit in our hearts, let us embark on this mirthful odyssey through the hallowed halls of academia and internet humor.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. Make lots of 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 US Social Security Administration 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection" presents a whimsical exploration of the unexpected relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the utilization of fossil fuels in Norway. While one might initially dismiss such a correlation as ludicrous or balderdash, our rigorous analysis of extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration has unveiled a surprising link that cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the world of academia, where serious faces and furrowed brows often reign supreme, our aim is to inject a dose of lightheartedness into the enthralling realm of statistical analysis and energy trends.
When pondering the connection between a moniker and the consumption of fossil fuels, one might understandably raise a perplexed eyebrow or two. After all, what could the name "London" possibly have to do with the burning of coal, oil, or gas in the chilly reaches of Norway? The very premise teeters on the edge of the absurd, inviting skepticism and eyebrow-raising that would make even the most stolid of researchers crack a smile.
Yet, as we dive headfirst into the data, what unfolds is a narrative of unforeseen correlations and curious coincidences that challenge our preconceived notions. The tangled web of nomenclature and energy trends gradually reveals an engrossing pattern that cannot be written off as mere happenstance. Prepare to be bewildered, amused, and perhaps even a little astounded as we unwrap the intriguing tale of the "London" and its dance with fossil fuels in the Norwegian landscape.
But do not be deceived; our journey through the labyrinth of data is not purely for the sake of amusement. The implications of our findings ripple far beyond the realm of mere mirth, paving the way for thought-provoking reflections on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena. Through our research, we strive to encourage an exploration of unconventional avenues and foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry, reminding ourselves that the most unexpected connections often hide in plain sight.
Join us as we meander through the twists and turns of this captivating study, where laughter and enlightenment intertwine in a dance of delightful discovery. By the end of our investigation, you may find yourself not only entertained but also enlightened on the peculiar bonds that tie together the worlds of names and energy consumption. So, buckle up and brace yourself for a trek into the realm of "fuelishness" that is sure to leave you both gasping for air and giggling at the marvels of statistical escapades!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unveil the mystifying connection between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, we embarked on a zany adventure through the boisterous realms of data collection and statistical analysis. Our research methodology aimed to capture the essence of whimsy while maintaining an unyielding commitment to rigor and methodological integrity.

Data Collection:

Our data collection process resembled a delightful scavenger hunt across digital landscapes, with the primary hunting grounds being the archives of the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration. Much like intrepid explorers navigating uncharted terrain, we meticulously gathered information on the frequency of the name "London" and the curious patterns of fossil fuel use in Norway from the years 1980 to 2021.

The collection of data from these sources was reminiscent of assembling a diverse ensemble cast for a grand performance. We sourced birth registries, naming patterns, fuel consumption reports, and other pertinent records, inviting each piece of information to dance into the spotlight of our analytical stage.

Data Analysis:

Our analytical framework was constructed with the precision of a masterful cake baker, carefully sifting through the ingredients of correlation analysis, time series modeling, and regression techniques. The centerpiece of our analysis was the calculation of correlation coefficients, akin to guiding a merry-go-round of mathematical tango between the frequency of the name "London" and the herculean dance of fossil fuels in Norway.

In wielding the tools of statistical inference and hypothesis testing, we embraced the spirit of jovial skepticism, ever mindful of the need to scrutinize our findings with a twinkle in our eyes and a skeptical furrow in our brows. We reveled in the scientific revelry of p-values and confidence intervals, striving to unravel the beguiling mystery of the "London" connection with the glee of puzzle enthusiasts untangling an enigmatic riddle.

The lighthearted spirit of our methodology was imbued with the irrepressible charm of seeking laughter and levity amid the rigors of empirical investigation. We recognized the gravity of our subject matter, but also acknowledged the transformative power of joy in unlocking the secrets of seemingly disparate phenomena.

In the end, our methodology danced with the echoes of playfulness and meticulousness, crafting a harmonious symphony of statistical merriment and scholarly inquiry to shed light on the flamboyant relationship between the name "London" and the utilization of fossil fuels in Norway.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. Make lots of 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 US Social Security Administration and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.9038507, r-squared of 0.8169460, 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection" presents a whimsical exploration of the unexpected relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the utilization of fossil fuels in Norway. While one might initially dismiss such a correlation as ludicrous or balderdash, our rigorous analysis of extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration has unveiled a surprising link that cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the world of academia, where serious faces and furrowed brows often reign supreme, our aim is to inject a dose of lightheartedness into the enthralling realm of statistical analysis and energy trends.
When pondering the connection between a moniker and the consumption of fossil fuels, one might understandably raise a perplexed eyebrow or two. After all, what could the name "London" possibly have to do with the burning of coal, oil, or gas in the chilly reaches of Norway? The very premise teeters on the edge of the absurd, inviting skepticism and eyebrow-raising that would make even the most stolid of researchers crack a smile.
Yet, as we dive headfirst into the data, what unfolds is a narrative of unforeseen correlations and curious coincidences that challenge our preconceived notions. The tangled web of nomenclature and energy trends gradually reveals an engrossing pattern that cannot be written off as mere happenstance. Prepare to be bewildered, amused, and perhaps even a little astounded as we unwrap the intriguing tale of the "London" and its dance with fossil fuels in the Norwegian landscape.
But do not be deceived; our journey through the labyrinth of data is not purely for the sake of amusement. The implications of our findings ripple far beyond the realm of mere mirth, paving the way for thought-provoking reflections on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena. Through our research, we strive to encourage an exploration of unconventional avenues and foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry, reminding ourselves that the most unexpected connections often hide in plain sight.
Join us as we meander through the twists and turns of this captivating study, where laughter and enlightenment intertwine in a dance of delightful discovery. By the end of our investigation, you may find yourself not only entertained but also enlightened on the peculiar bonds that tie together the worlds of names and energy consumption. So, buckle up and brace yourself for a trek into the realm of "fuelishness" that is sure to leave you both gasping for air and giggling at the marvels of statistical escapades!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway yielded some Fjord-tacious results. The correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 indicates a Ragnaroaringly strong positive correlation between the two variables. With an r-squared value of 0.8169460, we can confidently assert that approximately 81.7% of the variation in fossil fuel use in Norway can be attributed to the popularity of the name "London." As if that weren't enough to make you do a double take, the p-value of < 0.01 solidifies the statistical significance of this connection, leaving us in Norse of the validity of our findings.

In Fig. 1, we present a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the remarkable relationship between the popularity of the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. The scatterplot showcases a near-linear trend, with the increasing popularity of the name "London" mirrored by a parallel rise in fossil fuel consumption in Norway. We dare say, this correlation is so strong, it's as if we've stumbled upon the North Star itself guiding us through the data wilderness.

It's worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, the sheer magnitude of this association is enough to make even the most stoic researcher do a double take. Could it be that the name "London" exerts an inexplicable gravitational pull on Norway's fossil fuel consumption? Our findings certainly beg the question, and we invite fellow scholars to join us in delving deeper into the enchanting mystery that is "Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection."

In conclusion, our research has unveiled an unexpected and significant correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. These findings not only tickle the funny bone but also beckon us to contemplate the curious ways in which human behavior, nomenclature, and energy trends intersect. So grab your Viking helmet and buckle up for a journey through this bewitching web of data where the unexpected revels in its own statistical merriment!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. Make lots of 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The exploration of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the consumption of fossil fuels in Norway has long been a subject of intrigue within academic circles. Smith et al. (2010) first delved into the realm of unconventional correlations, challenging the traditional boundaries of nomenclature studies. Their initial foray into this uncharted territory laid the groundwork for subsequent researchers to follow, launching a cascade of investigations that seek to unravel the enigmatic ties between names and energy trends.
Doe and Jones (2015) further expanded on this line of inquiry, delving into the cultural significance and symbolic connotations of the name "London" in various regions. Their ethnomethodological approach offered valuable insights into the nuances of naming practices, illuminating the subtle threads that weave through the fabric of societal discourse. It is within this rich tapestry of naming conventions that the potential link to fossil fuel use in Norway begins to take shape, sprouting forth like a quirky wildflower amidst a field of statistical analysis.
In "Energy and Naming: Exploring Unconventional Correlations," the authors delve into the curious interplay between nomenclature and energy consumption, shedding light on the unexpected connections that lie beneath the surface. The whimsical hypotheses put forth in this seminal work set the stage for our present investigation, inviting us to embark on a spirited romp through the labyrinth of data in search of improbable associations and delightful revelations.
Turning our attention to the realm of non-fiction literature, the works of "The Energy Detective's Guide to Naming Quirks" by Renewable Watts and "Fuelish Follies: A Comical Compendium of Nomenclature Nonsense" by Sparky McPunster offer delightful glimpses into the playful side of naming conventions and energy trends. The interplay of humor and astute observations in these works serves as a refreshing reminder that scholarly pursuits need not always be somber affairs but can embrace whimsy and amusement.
On the fictional front, the likes of "The Name Game Conundrum" by Lexicon Lorelei and "Fossil Fuel Fables: A Tale of Names and Consumption" by Petro Novelenco beckon readers into a world where imagination runs wild and the boundaries of reality blur with whimsy. These imaginative narratives, while purely fictional in nature, provide a whimsical backdrop against which to contemplate the intersection of names and fossil fuel use in Norway.
In the realm of popular culture and internet memes, the enduring fascination with the name "London" and its potential ties to energy trends has manifested in the form of playful internet banter, with memes such as "London Calling: Fuel Edition" and "Fossil Fools and London Namesakes" capturing the imaginative musings of online communities. These lighthearted jests serve as a reminder that even the most unexpected connections can spark endless amusement and contemplative chatter in the virtual sphere.
As we navigate through this literature review, it becomes evident that the entwined realms of nomenclature, energy trends, and whimsical musings hold the potential for boundless amusement and scholarly inquiry. While the journey may have begun with raised eyebrows and perplexed skepticism, it is our hope that the culmination of this exploration will leave readers not only enlightened but also chuckling at the peculiarities of scholarly escapades. So, with a twinkle in our eyes and a playful spirit in our hearts, let us embark on this mirthful odyssey through the hallowed halls of academia and internet humor.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway yielded some Fjord-tacious results. The correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 indicates a Ragnaroaringly strong positive correlation between the two variables. With an r-squared value of 0.8169460, we can confidently assert that approximately 81.7% of the variation in fossil fuel use in Norway can be attributed to the popularity of the name "London." As if that weren't enough to make you do a double take, the p-value of < 0.01 solidifies the statistical significance of this connection, leaving us in Norse of the validity of our findings.
In Fig. 1, we present a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the remarkable relationship between the popularity of the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. The scatterplot showcases a near-linear trend, with the increasing popularity of the name "London" mirrored by a parallel rise in fossil fuel consumption in Norway. We dare say, this correlation is so strong, it's as if we've stumbled upon the North Star itself guiding us through the data wilderness.
It's worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, the sheer magnitude of this association is enough to make even the most stoic researcher do a double take. Could it be that the name "London" exerts an inexplicable gravitational pull on Norway's fossil fuel consumption? Our findings certainly beg the question, and we invite fellow scholars to join us in delving deeper into the enchanting mystery that is "Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection."
In conclusion, our research has unveiled an unexpected and significant correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. These findings not only tickle the funny bone but also beckon us to contemplate the curious ways in which human behavior, nomenclature, and energy trends intersect. So grab your Viking helmet and buckle up for a journey through this bewitching web of data where the unexpected revels in its own statistical merriment!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

In the spirit of scholarly inquiry and jocular musings, our findings reveal a Fjord-tastic correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. Our data, akin to a Viking ship sailing through the statistical sea, has not only illuminated a compelling association but also left us marveling at the whimsically wonderful world of data analysis.

Drawing from the whimsy of prior research, our results resoundingly support the unconventional correlations explored by Smith et al. (2010) and Doe and Jones (2015). The surprising robustness of the correlation coefficient echoes the quirky wildflower amidst statistical analysis as outlined by previous scholars. Our statistical romp through the labyrinth of data has not only substantiated but amplified the enigmatic ties between nomenclature and energy trends, much like a crescendo in a playful symphony of scholarly whimsy.

The correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 appears to be as solid as a fjord cliff, affirming the significant link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. This statistically Ragnarock-solid result provides a delightful reminder that even in the realm of serious research, the unexpected can spark mirthful bemusement and scholarly curiosity.

As we gaze upon the scatterplot, the near-linear trend between the popularity of the name "London" and fossil fuel consumption in Norway beckons to us like a siren call – or perhaps a North Star guiding us through the data wilderness. While correlation does not imply causation, the sheer magnitude of this association invites a heartfelt chuckle and a curious brow furrow, prompting us to ponder the delightful idiosyncrasies of human behavior and nomenclature in a fanciful dance with energy trends.

Reflecting on the broader implications, our findings not only enrich the scholarly conversation but also offer a mirthful embrace of the unexpected in the often-serious world of academic research. With a twinkle in our eyes and the spirit of levity in our hearts, we invite fellow scholars to join us in further unraveling the enigmatic mystery that is "Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection." After all, in the curious realm where data and whimsy intertwine, there are untold delights awaiting those who dare to seek.

So, let us raise our Viking helmets to the statistical merriment that has unfolded before us, and revel in the improbable connections that make the world of research a joyous and exhilarating adventure!

May the data be ever in your favor, and may the whimsical mysteries of scholarly pursuits continue to infuse our academic endeavors with amiable laughter and unfettered curiosity.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name London and Fossil fuel use in Norway. Make lots of 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]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
"Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection" presents a whimsical exploration of the unexpected relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and the utilization of fossil fuels in Norway. While one might initially dismiss such a correlation as ludicrous or balderdash, our rigorous analysis of extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration has unveiled a surprising link that cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the world of academia, where serious faces and furrowed brows often reign supreme, our aim is to inject a dose of lightheartedness into the enthralling realm of statistical analysis and energy trends.
When pondering the connection between a moniker and the consumption of fossil fuels, one might understandably raise a perplexed eyebrow or two. After all, what could the name "London" possibly have to do with the burning of coal, oil, or gas in the chilly reaches of Norway? The very premise teeters on the edge of the absurd, inviting skepticism and eyebrow-raising that would make even the most stolid of researchers crack a smile.
Yet, as we dive headfirst into the data, what unfolds is a narrative of unforeseen correlations and curious coincidences that challenge our preconceived notions. The tangled web of nomenclature and energy trends gradually reveals an engrossing pattern that cannot be written off as mere happenstance. Prepare to be bewildered, amused, and perhaps even a little astounded as we unwrap the intriguing tale of the "London" and its dance with fossil fuels in the Norwegian landscape.
But do not be deceived; our journey through the labyrinth of data is not purely for the sake of amusement. The implications of our findings ripple far beyond the realm of mere mirth, paving the way for thought-provoking reflections on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena. Through our research, we strive to encourage an exploration of unconventional avenues and foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry, reminding ourselves that the most unexpected connections often hide in plain sight.
Join us as we meander through the twists and turns of this captivating study, where laughter and enlightenment intertwine in a dance of delightful discovery. By the end of our investigation, you may find yourself not only entertained but also enlightened on the peculiar bonds that tie together the worlds of names and energy consumption. So, buckle up and brace yourself for a trek into the realm of "fuelishness" that is sure to leave you both gasping for air and giggling at the marvels of statistical escapades!

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway yielded some Fjord-tacious results. The correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 indicates a Ragnaroaringly strong positive correlation between the two variables. With an r-squared value of 0.8169460, we can confidently assert that approximately 81.7% of the variation in fossil fuel use in Norway can be attributed to the popularity of the name "London." As if that weren't enough to make you do a double take, the p-value of < 0.01 solidifies the statistical significance of this connection, leaving us in Norse of the validity of our findings.
In Fig. 1, we present a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the remarkable relationship between the popularity of the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. The scatterplot showcases a near-linear trend, with the increasing popularity of the name "London" mirrored by a parallel rise in fossil fuel consumption in Norway. We dare say, this correlation is so strong, it's as if we've stumbled upon the North Star itself guiding us through the data wilderness.
It's worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, the sheer magnitude of this association is enough to make even the most stoic researcher do a double take. Could it be that the name "London" exerts an inexplicable gravitational pull on Norway's fossil fuel consumption? Our findings certainly beg the question, and we invite fellow scholars to join us in delving deeper into the enchanting mystery that is "Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection."
In conclusion, our research has unveiled an unexpected and significant correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. These findings not only tickle the funny bone but also beckon us to contemplate the curious ways in which human behavior, nomenclature, and energy trends intersect. So grab your Viking helmet and buckle up for a journey through this bewitching web of data where the unexpected revels in its own statistical merriment!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In wrapping up our rib-tickling journey through the bizarre world of "Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection," we find ourselves in a delightful pickle of statistical merriment. Our findings have not only raised eyebrows but have also managed to raise a few giggles along the way. Who would have thought that the mere utterance of the name "London" could hold such sway over Norway's fossil fuel consumption? It's enough to make one wonder if Norwegians, upon hearing the name, simply can't resist the urge to crank up the old coal-burning stove or take a joyride in their fossil-fueled chariots.

But of course, in the world of academia, we must temper our amusement with the gravity befitting such findings. Our results, with a correlation coefficient akin to the strength of a Viking's battle cry, beckon us to contemplate the peculiar ways in which human behavior and nomenclature intertwine with energy trends. After all, the correlation is so strong that if it were any stronger, it would be sporting a horned helmet and brandishing a battle axe.

However, as we bid adieu to this quirky study, we must boldly assert that no further research is needed in this gloriously ridiculous area of inquiry. Our findings stand tall like a majestic fjord, and to delve deeper into this amusing mystery would be akin to traversing the same path twice – a venture better reserved for adventurers with a penchant for déjà vu. Let us savor the laughter, the surprise, and the enlightenment from this uproarious journey and leave the realm of "Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection" with a self-satisfied grin, knowing that we have unraveled one of academia's most endearing enigmas.

So, as we raise our mead horns in celebration, let us tip them to the unexpected connections that lurk in the unlikeliest of places – including the whimsical intersection of names and energy use. Skål to "London" and Norway, the unlikely companions in this scholarly tale of statistical scallywaggery!


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 Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Scandinavian Energy Absurdities


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 Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for the Advancement of Ludicrous Science (SALS)


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 Norwegian Fuelishness: The London Connection with an abstract of This research paper explores the correlation between the popularity of the first name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway. To uncover the fossil-fuelled truth, extensive data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration were analyzed. The results revealed a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9038507 with a p-value of < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2021. Our findings hint at a remarkably strong link between the name "London" and fossil fuel use in Norway, sparking illuminating discussions on the quirky interconnectedness of nomenclature and energy trends. Join us on this wild ride through the labyrinth of data to uncover the fuelish merriment that is sure to leave you gasping for air - or perhaps a breath of fresh, renewable energy.

ChatGPT:

Norway, fossil fuel use, London, correlation, first name popularity, data analysis, US Social Security Administration, Energy Information Administration, correlation coefficient, energy trends, nomenclature, renewable energy

*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

Popularity of the first name London
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named London
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name London

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 r = 0.9038507 (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 = 0.8169460 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 81.7% 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., Popularity of the first name London) over the 42 years from 1980 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.5E-16. 0.0000000000000002462605925728
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 2.5E-14% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 4,060,739,030,766,274 random variables You don't actually need 4 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.

[ 0.83, 0.95 ] 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.
198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Popularity of the first name London (Babies born)354034545860891131431812092412372402952493013113033524454554655056138421309156026373150338336173687387537253366270622471920199917551562
Fossil fuel use in Norway (Billion kWh)0.1370.1220.2630.3140.320.3290.4410.5090.4560.4670.2110.180.1810.1920.3510.3660.4660.4150.3960.4780.274480.322420.331820.43240.477520.49820.598780.879840.569644.100284.729144.305082.9492.8422.9972.9912.9682.9312.95832.693062.138671.23949




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. 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([35,40,34,54,58,60,89,113,143,181,209,241,237,240,295,249,301,311,303,352,445,455,465,505,613,842,1309,1560,2637,3150,3383,3617,3687,3875,3725,3366,2706,2247,1920,1999,1755,1562,])
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 = "Popularity of the first name London"
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:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Cheers to you for rating this correlation!


Correlation ID: 2616 · Black Variable ID: 3264 · Red Variable ID: 23876
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0