Spurious correlation #2,869 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the second variable is Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. The chart goes from 1990 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the second variable is Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. The chart goes from 1990 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

The cleaner air led to an increase in outdoor activities, causing a decline in TV watching. Plus, with everyone able to breathe better, they were less interested in the dramatic and breathless plotlines of the show. Also, with reduced air pollution, the citizens of Gettysburg were simply less stressed, and didn't feel the need to escape into the soap opera world of Days of Our Lives.

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a TIME magazine cover inspired visual showcasing a bustling scene in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The streets are filled with people enjoying the fresh air and sunshine, mingling in outdoor spaces. The overall atmosphere should exude a sense of liveliness and community engagement, with individuals taking in the clearer air and savoring the outdoors. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. 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: Celtic art A TIME magazine cover image Parallax art Concept art High-tech
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives, in the following situation: As air pollution levels in Gettysburg decreased, more people were able to go outside and get some fresh air instead of staying home and watching Days of Our Lives.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the air was clearer and fresh as people filled the streets, enjoying the sunshine. Instead of sitting at home, more and more viewership count for Days of Our Lives dropped as people took advantage of the better air quality to go for walks and gather in outdoor spaces.

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: [ A TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the air was clearer and fresh as people filled the streets, enjoying the sunshine. Instead of sitting at home, more and more viewership count for Days of Our Lives dropped as people took advantage of the better air quality to go for walks and gather in outdoor spaces. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a TIME magazine cover inspired visual showcasing a bustling scene in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The streets are filled with people enjoying the fresh air and sunshine, mingling in outdoor spaces. The overall atmosphere should exude a sense of liveliness and community engagement, with individuals taking in the clearer air and savoring the outdoors.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania caused Viewership count for Days of Our Lives to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives

The Journal of Esoteric Studies in Soap Bubbles and Soap Operas

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the surprising and sudsy connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the beloved soap opera, Days of Our Lives. With the help of the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data and the viewership statistics from Wikipedia, we endeavored to bring light to this soapy, yet serious, matter. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2021, suggesting a startling link between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that air pollution and soap operas do mix, much like our data and a good dad joke.

Our study encompasses both the lighthearted nature of soap opera fandom and the concerning impact of air pollution on public health. We hope this research sparks further investigation into unexpected correlations and provides a moment of comic relief amidst scientific inquiry. After all, even in academia, there's always time to lather up some laughter.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
When we think of air pollution research, we often envision somber scientists peering at air quality monitors with furrowed brows. However, in the case of this study, we set out to uncover a correlation that might just leave you with more suds than frowns. Yes, we are delving into the foamy relationship between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the enduring daytime drama, Days of Our Lives. It seems that in the world of academia, even the most unexpected pairings can create quite the sudsy intrigue.
The juxtaposition of serious air quality concerns and melodramatic soap operas may indeed seem like a case of "air apparent" and "soapbox" having an unexpected rendezvous. But before we unravel the mysteries of this bubbly connection, it's essential to recognize the gravity behind our investigative pursuits. After all, even in the study of soap operas and air pollution, we aim to make a clean sweep of the data.
As we venture into this soapy saga, it's crucial to acknowledge the sheer magnitude of air pollution's impact on public health. From respiratory issues to environmental degradation, the repercussions are nothing to sneeze at. And while the connection to television viewership may seem far-fetched, it's an opportunity to shed light on an otherwise air-brushed facet of environmental research. In the wise words of a concerned parent, "Let's clear the air on this matter and see what unfolds."
But amidst the serious undertones, we cannot ignore the surprising allure of the soap opera world. Whether it's the dramatic plot twists, the legendary love triangles, or the ever-recurring character resurrections, the allure of daytime dramas is undeniable. Much like the cliffhanger episodes of Days of Our Lives, our findings promise a narrative that sparks curiosity and, dare we say, a few chuckles along the way. It's as if the data itself is preparing for a dramatic entrance, prompting us to ask, "Will this correlation survive the inevitable plot twists?"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Air Pollution and Public Health" by Smith, the authors find a significant correlation between air pollution levels and various respiratory illnesses. There are no surprises there. However, what's surprising is that our study, which explores the connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives, reveals a correlation that's as unexpected as a soap opera character coming back from the dead for the umpteenth time.

In "The Economics of Air Quality" by Doe, the authors examine the economic impact of air pollution on local industries and healthcare expenditures. They meticulously quantify the costs associated with pollution-related health issues. Speaking of costs, did you hear about the air pollution enthusiast who invested in a smoggy start-up? It went bankrupt because they couldn't find any "clean air" investors. Anyway, our research sheds light on a different kind of cost – the opportunity cost of not tuning in to Days of Our Lives while fretting over air pollution.

As we wade deeper into this bubbly exploration, it becomes pertinent to consider the real-life implications of our findings, which seem as unlikely as a character on Days of Our Lives retiring peacefully to a countryside cottage. The study "Air Quality and Environmental Policy" by Jones underscores the necessity of stringent environmental regulations to mitigate the detrimental effects of air pollution. Our findings, while seemingly light-hearted, prompt a call for action akin to a soap opera character's dramatic plea for justice.

Turning our attention from the academic sphere to the world of literature, we encounter "Breathless: How Air Pollution is Choking Our Cities and How We Can Stop It" – a non-fiction publication that emphasizes the urgent need for addressing air pollution. This book is as serious as a doctor entering a room with a "No Air Pollution Allowed" sign. On a lighter note, there's "Love in the Time of Smog," a fictitious novel that seems to mix romantic intrigue with environmental advocacy. It's almost like the authors were inspired by the intertwined nature of our study's subjects.

Speaking of fictional works, let's not forget the captivating allure of soap operas in the realm of popular culture. From "The Bold and the Smoggy" to "As the Pollution Spreads," there's a whimsical connection between soap opera titles and our research subject. It's enough to make you wonder if our data has plot twists as tantalizing as the drama on screen.

And, of course, no exploration of soap operas would be complete without a nod to childhood nostalgia. Remember the cartoons and children's shows that kept us entertained? "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" comes to mind – a heroic group dedicated to protecting the environment which, coincidentally, involved battling air pollution. It's almost as if our study has a companion in the unlikely form of an animated eco-warrior.

In conclusion, our review of the literature, much like the Days of Our Lives plotline, reveals unexpected twists and turns in the storytelling. This correlation between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives is as puzzling as trying to figure out who the real villain is in a soap opera. Regardless, our findings provide both a lighthearted diversion and a reminder of the consequential impact of air pollution. After all, even amidst the suds, there's always room for a breath of fresh air – and a well-timed dad joke.

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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Wikipedia . You used data from 1990 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]]
Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the surprising and sudsy connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the beloved soap opera, Days of Our Lives. With the help of the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data and the viewership statistics from Wikipedia, we endeavored to bring light to this soapy, yet serious, matter. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2021, suggesting a startling link between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that air pollution and soap operas do mix, much like our data and a good dad joke.

Our study encompasses both the lighthearted nature of soap opera fandom and the concerning impact of air pollution on public health. We hope this research sparks further investigation into unexpected correlations and provides a moment of comic relief amidst scientific inquiry. After all, even in academia, there's always time to lather up some laughter.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
When we think of air pollution research, we often envision somber scientists peering at air quality monitors with furrowed brows. However, in the case of this study, we set out to uncover a correlation that might just leave you with more suds than frowns. Yes, we are delving into the foamy relationship between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the enduring daytime drama, Days of Our Lives. It seems that in the world of academia, even the most unexpected pairings can create quite the sudsy intrigue.
The juxtaposition of serious air quality concerns and melodramatic soap operas may indeed seem like a case of "air apparent" and "soapbox" having an unexpected rendezvous. But before we unravel the mysteries of this bubbly connection, it's essential to recognize the gravity behind our investigative pursuits. After all, even in the study of soap operas and air pollution, we aim to make a clean sweep of the data.
As we venture into this soapy saga, it's crucial to acknowledge the sheer magnitude of air pollution's impact on public health. From respiratory issues to environmental degradation, the repercussions are nothing to sneeze at. And while the connection to television viewership may seem far-fetched, it's an opportunity to shed light on an otherwise air-brushed facet of environmental research. In the wise words of a concerned parent, "Let's clear the air on this matter and see what unfolds."
But amidst the serious undertones, we cannot ignore the surprising allure of the soap opera world. Whether it's the dramatic plot twists, the legendary love triangles, or the ever-recurring character resurrections, the allure of daytime dramas is undeniable. Much like the cliffhanger episodes of Days of Our Lives, our findings promise a narrative that sparks curiosity and, dare we say, a few chuckles along the way. It's as if the data itself is preparing for a dramatic entrance, prompting us to ask, "Will this correlation survive the inevitable plot twists?"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To embark on this whimsical but scholarly pursuit, we waded deep into the bubbling world of data collection and statistical analysis. Our research team engaged in a delightful dance between the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data and Wikipedia's treasure trove of viewership statistics for Days of Our Lives. As the saying goes, "When in doubt, trust in EPA and the all-knowing Wikipedia."

In order to capture the essence of the "Suds and Smog" connection, our methodology had to be as intricate as untangling a convoluted soap opera plot. First, we extracted air pollution data from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania spanning the years 1990 to 2021, using robust statistical methods to ensure the accuracy of our findings. We then delved into the captivating world of soap opera viewership, meticulously documenting the ebbs and flows of Days of Our Lives' audience numbers. It was a bit like navigating the plot twists of a soap opera, but with spreadsheets instead of scandalous secrets.

Now, as we ventured into the statistical realm, we employed a correlation analysis to unveil the potential connection between air pollution levels and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. Our trusty statistical tools, including Pearson's correlation coefficient, were employed to measure the strength and direction of this relationship. While we did not uncover any hidden love triangles in the data, we did uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 and p < 0.01, indicating a robust association between air pollution levels in Gettysburg and the viewership count for the soap opera. It seems that in the world of statistical analysis, even unexpected pairings can form a compelling narrative.

In order to ensure the validity and rigor of our findings, we also conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the correlation. We subjected the data to various scenarios and statistical methodologies, akin to the dramatic plot twists that keep soap opera aficionados on the edge of their seats. And much like a well-crafted soap opera storyline, our correlation remained resolute, standing firm amidst the tumultuous winds of statistical scrutiny.

Furthermore, to prevent any potential confounding variables from muddying the waters of our analysis, we incorporated multiple regression models to control for external factors that could sway our findings. We meticulously combed through the data, ensuring that our conclusions were as clear as the skies after a heavy rain—no, not the foreshadowing kind, but the kind that simply makes for a beautiful day.

In the spirit of academic transparency, it's important to acknowledge the limitations of our methodology. While we have diligently combed through the data, the complexities of human behavior and environmental dynamics may introduce nuances that are beyond the scope of our analysis. And much like the dramatic cliffhangers of a soap opera, our study undoubtedly leaves room for future exploration and inquiry.

In summary, our methodology blended the seriousness of scientific inquiry with the delightful intrigue of soap opera storytelling, employing statistical analyses and robust data collection to uncover the frothy yet significant correlation between air pollution in Gettysburg and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. It seems that even in the world of academia, there's room to lather up some laughter and uncover unexpected connections—it's like a bubble bath for the mind.

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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the surprising and sudsy connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the beloved soap opera, Days of Our Lives. With the help of the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data and the viewership statistics from Wikipedia, we endeavored to bring light to this soapy, yet serious, matter. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2021, suggesting a startling link between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that air pollution and soap operas do mix, much like our data and a good dad joke.

Our study encompasses both the lighthearted nature of soap opera fandom and the concerning impact of air pollution on public health. We hope this research sparks further investigation into unexpected correlations and provides a moment of comic relief amidst scientific inquiry. After all, even in academia, there's always time to lather up some laughter.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Air Pollution and Public Health" by Smith, the authors find a significant correlation between air pollution levels and various respiratory illnesses. There are no surprises there. However, what's surprising is that our study, which explores the connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives, reveals a correlation that's as unexpected as a soap opera character coming back from the dead for the umpteenth time.
In "The Economics of Air Quality" by Doe, the authors examine the economic impact of air pollution on local industries and healthcare expenditures. They meticulously quantify the costs associated with pollution-related health issues. Speaking of costs, did you hear about the air pollution enthusiast who invested in a smoggy start-up? It went bankrupt because they couldn't find any "clean air" investors. Anyway, our research sheds light on a different kind of cost – the opportunity cost of not tuning in to Days of Our Lives while fretting over air pollution.
As we wade deeper into this bubbly exploration, it becomes pertinent to consider the real-life implications of our findings, which seem as unlikely as a character on Days of Our Lives retiring peacefully to a countryside cottage. The study "Air Quality and Environmental Policy" by Jones underscores the necessity of stringent environmental regulations to mitigate the detrimental effects of air pollution. Our findings, while seemingly light-hearted, prompt a call for action akin to a soap opera character's dramatic plea for justice.
Turning our attention from the academic sphere to the world of literature, we encounter "Breathless: How Air Pollution is Choking Our Cities and How We Can Stop It" – a non-fiction publication that emphasizes the urgent need for addressing air pollution. This book is as serious as a doctor entering a room with a "No Air Pollution Allowed" sign. On a lighter note, there's "Love in the Time of Smog," a fictitious novel that seems to mix romantic intrigue with environmental advocacy. It's almost like the authors were inspired by the intertwined nature of our study's subjects.
Speaking of fictional works, let's not forget the captivating allure of soap operas in the realm of popular culture. From "The Bold and the Smoggy" to "As the Pollution Spreads," there's a whimsical connection between soap opera titles and our research subject. It's enough to make you wonder if our data has plot twists as tantalizing as the drama on screen.
And, of course, no exploration of soap operas would be complete without a nod to childhood nostalgia. Remember the cartoons and children's shows that kept us entertained? "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" comes to mind – a heroic group dedicated to protecting the environment which, coincidentally, involved battling air pollution. It's almost as if our study has a companion in the unlikely form of an animated eco-warrior.
In conclusion, our review of the literature, much like the Days of Our Lives plotline, reveals unexpected twists and turns in the storytelling. This correlation between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives is as puzzling as trying to figure out who the real villain is in a soap opera. Regardless, our findings provide both a lighthearted diversion and a reminder of the consequential impact of air pollution. After all, even amidst the suds, there's always room for a breath of fresh air – and a well-timed dad joke.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a surprising and statistically significant correlation between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. The correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 indicated a moderately strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. In other words, as air pollution levels increased, so did the viewership count for this long-running soap opera. It appears that when it comes to environmental hazards and daytime dramas, the plot thickens in unexpected ways, much like a good bar of soap.
The r-squared value of 0.5072441 further substantiated the strength of the relationship, suggesting that a whopping 50.72% of the variability in Days of Our Lives viewership count could be explained by changes in air pollution levels. This isn't just a mere soap bubble of a correlation; it's more like a sudsy cascade of statistical significance.
The p-value of less than 0.01 provided additional support for the robustness of the correlation, indicating that the likelihood of observing such a strong association between air pollution and soap opera viewership by random chance alone is as rare as finding a clean shirt in a teenager's laundry. This level of significance certainly keeps the "drama" in statistical drama.
Surely, our findings may leave some scratching their heads, wondering how air pollution and soap operas could be intertwined in such a compelling narrative. But much like a cleverly delivered dad joke, sometimes the most unexpected connections can bring the most joyous surprises.
Fig. 1, which is omitted for suspense and dramatic effect, visually confirms the existence of this intriguing correlation, capturing the essence of the suds and smog story in a way that both entertains and enlightens. This figure serves as an emblematic representation of how the unlikeliest of pairs can come together to form a harmonious, albeit bubbly, relationship.
In conclusion, our research has successfully unveiled a substantial link between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. As we wrap up this segment of our study, we're left to ponder one thing: can we truly breathe easy when the fate of soap operas depends on the air we breathe?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study has uncovered a compelling association between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives, much like the satisfying resolution of a soap opera cliffhanger. Our findings align with prior research on unexpected correlations, demonstrating the robustness of the relationship between air quality and soap opera fandom. It's as if our data and these seemingly unrelated variables were destined to meet, much like a soap opera hero and their long-lost twin.

Building on the findings of Smith's work on air pollution and public health, our results reinforce the significant impact of air pollution on public behaviors, exemplified by the unexpectedly high viewership count for Days of Our Lives. This connection is as clear as the trademark catchphrases in soap operas – it's undeniable once you see it.

Moreover, our study echoes the economic implications highlighted by Doe in "The Economics of Air Quality." Just as air pollution incurs tangible costs on healthcare and industries, our findings suggest an opportunity cost of not tuning in to Days of Our Lives, reminding us that there's "tune" in "opportunity cost" and that we must strike a balance between soap opera indulgence and environmental mindfulness.

Our results also echo the sentiments expressed in "Air Quality and Environmental Policy" by Jones, underlining the need for proactive environmental regulations. As if inspired by a timely plot twist, our research propels the narrative from mere entertainment to a call for environmental action, much like a soap opera character's impassioned plea for justice.

Turning to the whimsical realm of literature, our study resonates with the urgent tone of "Breathless" and the environmental advocacy inherent in "Love in the Time of Smog." The seriousness of our correlation is as palpable as the impending doom in a soap opera love triangle – it simply cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, the unexpected correlation we unveiled aligns with the playful connections embedded in soap opera titles and the eco-conscious themes of "Captain Planet and the Planeteers." It's almost as if our study shares its plot with a captivating children's show, reminding us that there's a superhero in all of us – and that even the most unexpected pairings can wield a powerful message.

In summary, our research has not only illuminated an unexpected relationship between air pollution and soap opera viewership but has also reinforced the importance of unearthing unconventional connections in scholarly inquiry. As we peer through the sudsy haze, it's evident that science, much like a well-crafted dad joke, thrives on unveiling the unexpected and exploring the delightful twists in the narrative of our world.

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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership count for Days of Our Lives. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the surprising and sudsy connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the beloved soap opera, Days of Our Lives. With the help of the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data and the viewership statistics from Wikipedia, we endeavored to bring light to this soapy, yet serious, matter. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2021, suggesting a startling link between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that air pollution and soap operas do mix, much like our data and a good dad joke.

Our study encompasses both the lighthearted nature of soap opera fandom and the concerning impact of air pollution on public health. We hope this research sparks further investigation into unexpected correlations and provides a moment of comic relief amidst scientific inquiry. After all, even in academia, there's always time to lather up some laughter.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
When we think of air pollution research, we often envision somber scientists peering at air quality monitors with furrowed brows. However, in the case of this study, we set out to uncover a correlation that might just leave you with more suds than frowns. Yes, we are delving into the foamy relationship between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the enduring daytime drama, Days of Our Lives. It seems that in the world of academia, even the most unexpected pairings can create quite the sudsy intrigue.
The juxtaposition of serious air quality concerns and melodramatic soap operas may indeed seem like a case of "air apparent" and "soapbox" having an unexpected rendezvous. But before we unravel the mysteries of this bubbly connection, it's essential to recognize the gravity behind our investigative pursuits. After all, even in the study of soap operas and air pollution, we aim to make a clean sweep of the data.
As we venture into this soapy saga, it's crucial to acknowledge the sheer magnitude of air pollution's impact on public health. From respiratory issues to environmental degradation, the repercussions are nothing to sneeze at. And while the connection to television viewership may seem far-fetched, it's an opportunity to shed light on an otherwise air-brushed facet of environmental research. In the wise words of a concerned parent, "Let's clear the air on this matter and see what unfolds."
But amidst the serious undertones, we cannot ignore the surprising allure of the soap opera world. Whether it's the dramatic plot twists, the legendary love triangles, or the ever-recurring character resurrections, the allure of daytime dramas is undeniable. Much like the cliffhanger episodes of Days of Our Lives, our findings promise a narrative that sparks curiosity and, dare we say, a few chuckles along the way. It's as if the data itself is preparing for a dramatic entrance, prompting us to ask, "Will this correlation survive the inevitable plot twists?"

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a surprising and statistically significant correlation between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. The correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 indicated a moderately strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. In other words, as air pollution levels increased, so did the viewership count for this long-running soap opera. It appears that when it comes to environmental hazards and daytime dramas, the plot thickens in unexpected ways, much like a good bar of soap.
The r-squared value of 0.5072441 further substantiated the strength of the relationship, suggesting that a whopping 50.72% of the variability in Days of Our Lives viewership count could be explained by changes in air pollution levels. This isn't just a mere soap bubble of a correlation; it's more like a sudsy cascade of statistical significance.
The p-value of less than 0.01 provided additional support for the robustness of the correlation, indicating that the likelihood of observing such a strong association between air pollution and soap opera viewership by random chance alone is as rare as finding a clean shirt in a teenager's laundry. This level of significance certainly keeps the "drama" in statistical drama.
Surely, our findings may leave some scratching their heads, wondering how air pollution and soap operas could be intertwined in such a compelling narrative. But much like a cleverly delivered dad joke, sometimes the most unexpected connections can bring the most joyous surprises.
Fig. 1, which is omitted for suspense and dramatic effect, visually confirms the existence of this intriguing correlation, capturing the essence of the suds and smog story in a way that both entertains and enlightens. This figure serves as an emblematic representation of how the unlikeliest of pairs can come together to form a harmonious, albeit bubbly, relationship.
In conclusion, our research has successfully unveiled a substantial link between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives. As we wrap up this segment of our study, we're left to ponder one thing: can we truly breathe easy when the fate of soap operas depends on the air we breathe?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has not only revealed a significant correlation between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for Days of Our Lives but has also added a refreshing twist to the typically serious world of environmental and television studies. It seems that air pollution and soap operas do indeed create quite the sudsy saga, much like a (clean) dad joke at a dinner table.

The robust correlation coefficient and p-value give us confidence that this unexpected association is more than just a soap bubble in a storm - it's a genuine link that warrants further exploration. After all, who could resist uncovering the mystery behind the air pollution-soap opera connection? It's a plot twist even the most seasoned soap opera writer couldn't have concocted!

As we wrap up this study, we are reminded of the inherent humor and unpredictability of scientific inquiry. Much like the plot twists of Days of Our Lives, our findings keep us on the edge of our seats and leave us wondering what surprising links lie undiscovered in the realm of environmental influences on entertainment preferences. It's as if the very molecules of air pollution themselves are whispering, "Stay tuned for the next episode of Soaps and Smog."

And so, we assert that no further research is needed in this particular area - we've cleaned the data, aired the correlation, and left academia with a dash of lighthearted amusement. Much like finding a hidden treasure in a pile of laundry, this correlation between air pollution and soap opera viewership is an unexpected delight that highlights the whimsical side of scientific investigation. It's a reminder that even in the most unexpected pairings, there's always something to learn and laugh about.

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 Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Esoteric Studies in Soap Bubbles and Soap Operas

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 Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Soapbox Sciences

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 Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives with an abstract of In this study, we delve into the surprising and sudsy connection between air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the viewership count for the beloved soap opera, Days of Our Lives. With the help of the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data and the viewership statistics from Wikipedia, we endeavored to bring light to this soapy, yet serious, matter. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7122107 and p < 0.01 for the years 1990 to 2021, suggesting a startling link between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that air pollution and soap operas do mix, much like our data and a good dad joke.
Our study encompasses both the lighthearted nature of soap opera fandom and the concerning impact of air pollution on public health. We hope this research sparks further investigation into unexpected correlations and provides a moment of comic relief amidst scientific inquiry. After all, even in academia, there's always time to lather up some laughter.

ChatGPT:

air pollution, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, viewership count, Days of Our Lives, soap opera, Environmental Protection Agency, air quality data, Wikipedia, correlation coefficient, unexpected correlations, public health, scientific inquiry

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

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Detailed data title: Percentage of days 'unhealthy' or worse air quality in Gettysburg, PA
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Viewership count for Days of Our Lives
Detailed data title: Metered viewership count for Days of Our Lives
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Viewership count for Days of Our Lives

Correlation r = 0.7122107 (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 = 0.5072441 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 50.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Viewership count for Days of Our Lives) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania) over the 32 years from 1990 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.8E-6.^Show 0.0000048336121639216450000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.71 in 0.00048% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 206,885 random variables^Note You don't actually need 206 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 31 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 31 because we have two variables measured over a period of 32 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.

[ 0.48, 0.85 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	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 Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (Bad air quality days)	0.0275482	0.0589888	0.00280899	0.0431034	0.0195531	0.0422535	0.0140449	0.0167598	0.0524862	0.0192308	0.00819672	0.0383562	0.060274	0.00547945	0	0.00274725	0	0	0.00273973	0	0.00547945	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Viewership count for Days of Our Lives (Nielson share)	5200000	5400000	4900000	5600000	5300000	5800000	5800000	5100000	5800000	4200000	3800000	3600000	3100000	3100000	2700000	2600000	2300000	2100000	2200000	2200000	2000000	2000000	2100000	1900000	2050000	1800000	1600000	1600000	1600000	1400000	1200000	1200000

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^Note 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^Note 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.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."

# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([0.0275482,0.0589888,0.00280899,0.0431034,0.0195531,0.0422535,0.0140449,0.0167598,0.0524862,0.0192308,0.00819672,0.0383562,0.060274,0.00547945,0,0.00274725,0,0,0.00273973,0,0.00547945,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,])
array_2 = np.array([5200000,5400000,4900000,5600000,5300000,5800000,5800000,5100000,5800000,4200000,3800000,3600000,3100000,3100000,2700000,2600000,2300000,2100000,2200000,2200000,2000000,2000000,2100000,1900000,2050000,1800000,1600000,1600000,1600000,1400000,1200000,1200000,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania"
array_2_name = "Viewership count for Days of Our Lives"

# 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. ^Note 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 ^Note 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 Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Line chart for only Viewership count for Days of Our Lives
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Suds and Smog: Exploring the Bubbly Relationship Between Air Pollution in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Viewership Count for Days of Our Lives

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your correlation inspection deserves a standing ovation!

Correlation ID: 2869 · Black Variable ID: 22184 · Red Variable ID: 87


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: