Download png, svg
AI explanation
The cleaner air in Gulfport led to a baby boom as residents found themselves more energized and in the mood for romance. Perhaps the fresh Gulfport breeze carried a hint of fertility, inspiring amorous activities and sparking a rise in the population. It seems like Gulfport has found the secret recipe for both clean air and an abundance of storks!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image using the style of a meme, depicting a serene beach scene in Gulfport, Mississippi, with couples strolling along the shore at sunset. Meanwhile, in the background, residents are depicted searching "how to make a baby" on their smartphones, with a warm and hopeful expression. The image should capture the romantic ambiance and population growth in Gulfport due to the amorous atmosphere and pristine air. 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 quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. 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: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie a meme Woodblock painting Realistic Steampunk
ChatGPT: a meme
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 quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby', in the following situation: The cleaner air in Gulfport led to a baby boom as residents found themselves more energized and in the mood for romance. Perhaps the fresh Gulfport breeze carried a hint of fertility, inspiring amorous activities and sparking a rise in the population. It seems like Gulfport has found the secret recipe for both clean air and an abundance of storks!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Gulfport, Mississippi, the air is clean and refreshing, with a gentle breeze carrying the scent of the ocean. Amidst the clear skies and sparkling waters, couples stroll along the beach, holding hands and gazing into each other's eyes. The sun sets in a warm, golden glow, casting a romantic ambiance over the city. Meanwhile, on their smartphones, residents are seen searching "how to make a baby" on Google, their faces filled with hopeful excitement. The combination of pristine air and the amorous atmosphere has seemingly led to a baby boom in Gulfport, as the city experiences a surge in population growth and joyful families welcoming new arrivals.
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 meme ] and depicting this scene: In Gulfport, Mississippi, the air is clean and refreshing, with a gentle breeze carrying the scent of the ocean. Amidst the clear skies and sparkling waters, couples stroll along the beach, holding hands and gazing into each other's eyes. The sun sets in a warm, golden glow, casting a romantic ambiance over the city. Meanwhile, on their smartphones, residents are seen searching "how to make a baby" on Google, their faces filled with hopeful excitement. The combination of pristine air and the amorous atmosphere has seemingly led to a baby boom in Gulfport, as the city experiences a surge in population growth and joyful families welcoming new arrivals. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image using the style of a meme, depicting a serene beach scene in Gulfport, Mississippi, with couples strolling along the shore at sunset. Meanwhile, in the background, residents are depicted searching "how to make a baby" on their smartphones, with a warm and hopeful expression. The image should capture the romantic ambiance and population growth in Gulfport due to the amorous atmosphere and pristine air.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi caused how to make baby (Google searches for 'how to make baby') to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.
AI academic paper
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum Journal of Atmospheric Babysitting and Environmental Quandaries Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title seem clever.
Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2023.
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]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
Ah, the sweet, salty air of Gulfport, Mississippi, where the breeze carries the playful whispers of the Gulf and possibly a hint of something else – a longing for new life, perhaps? In this fascinating paper, we dive headfirst into the peculiar connection between air quality and the curious, sometimes comical, Google searches for 'how to make baby.' As we embark on this whimsical journey through the data, let's don our proverbial snorkels and wade into the murky waters of statistical analysis, where the waves of correlation and causation may just carry us to unexpected shores.
Now, to those uninitiated in the delightful realm of academic research, the mere suggestion of a link between air quality and the stirrings of procreation may seem as curious as a shark with an allergy to seafood. But fear not, dear reader, for we assure you that this unusual pairing is not the result of someone spiking our beakers with laughter-inducing gas in the laboratory. Our intent is as pure as the driven snow – we seek to unravel the enigmatic relationship between environmental factors and the oh-so-human yearning for parenthood, all while sprinkling in a dash of statistical merriment and a whiff of dry humor.
You see, what sparked our interest in this offbeat inquiry was the ongoing debate in the scientific community about the influence of environmental conditions on human behavior. Could it be that the quality of the air we breathe may hold sway over our curiosity about the birds and the bees? Could the ebb and flow of pollutants in the atmosphere be entangled in the web of online searches for family planning? These questions floated around our minds like helium-filled balloons, begging to be investigated. And so, armed with the noble pursuit of knowledge and a generous pinch of scientific curiosity, we embarked on this peculiar quest.
Stay tuned, because what follows is a whimsical and wondrous exploration of the unexpected, where we unveil surprising correlations and dispel statistical myths with the flair of a magician revealing a hidden card up their sleeve. It's a scientific sleight of hand with a sprinkle of stardust, and it promises to leave you breathless – whether from the anticipation of discovery or the sheer audacity of our endeavor is entirely up to you. So, buckle up, hold your breath, and let the air of Gulfport carry us into the captivating tale of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum!
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. 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]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the sweet, salty air of Gulfport, Mississippi, where the breeze carries the playful whispers of the Gulf and possibly a hint of something else – a longing for new life, perhaps? In this fascinating paper, we dive headfirst into the peculiar connection between air quality and the curious, sometimes comical, Google searches for 'how to make baby.' As we embark on this whimsical journey through the data, let's don our proverbial snorkels and wade into the murky waters of statistical analysis, where the waves of correlation and causation may just carry us to unexpected shores.
Now, to those uninitiated in the delightful realm of academic research, the mere suggestion of a link between air quality and the stirrings of procreation may seem as curious as a shark with an allergy to seafood. But fear not, dear reader, for we assure you that this unusual pairing is not the result of someone spiking our beakers with laughter-inducing gas in the laboratory. Our intent is as pure as the driven snow – we seek to unravel the enigmatic relationship between environmental factors and the oh-so-human yearning for parenthood, all while sprinkling in a dash of statistical merriment and a whiff of dry humor.
You see, what sparked our interest in this offbeat inquiry was the ongoing debate in the scientific community about the influence of environmental conditions on human behavior. Could it be that the quality of the air we breathe may hold sway over our curiosity about the birds and the bees? Could the ebb and flow of pollutants in the atmosphere be entangled in the web of online searches for family planning? These questions floated around our minds like helium-filled balloons, begging to be investigated. And so, armed with the noble pursuit of knowledge and a generous pinch of scientific curiosity, we embarked on this peculiar quest.
Stay tuned, because what follows is a whimsical and wondrous exploration of the unexpected, where we unveil surprising correlations and dispel statistical myths with the flair of a magician revealing a hidden card up their sleeve. It's a scientific sleight of hand with a sprinkle of stardust, and it promises to leave you breathless – whether from the anticipation of discovery or the sheer audacity of our endeavor is entirely up to you. So, buckle up, hold your breath, and let the air of Gulfport carry us into the captivating tale of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their groundbreaking study, Smith, Doe, and Jones (2015) shed light on the impact of air quality on human behavior, outlining the potential connections between environmental conditions and internet search behavior. Their findings, while initially met with skepticism, provided a foundation for further exploration into the whimsical world of online inquiries and environmental factors. Similarly, the work of Brown and Johnson (2018) delved into the intricate web of air quality and its potential influence on human interests, paving the way for our peculiar investigation into the correlation between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and Google searches for 'how to make baby.' The links between seemingly unrelated phenomena, much like the unexpected bond between peanut butter and pickles, continue to intrigue researchers and tickle the funny bone of academic curiosities.
Turning to non-fiction literature, 'The Air We Breathe: From Emissions to Emotions' by Environmentalist et al. (2017) offers a comprehensive examination of the far-reaching effects of air quality on human experiences, leaving no stone unturned in their exploration of the atmospheric influence on everyday life. In a similar vein, 'The Curious Case of Curious Searches' by Online Etiquette Expert (2020) delves into the curious, comical, and sometimes confounding nature of internet searches, providing an insightful perspective on the seemingly perplexing queries that emanate from the depths of cyberspace.
Now, in a deviation from the typical academic trajectory, we must call attention to the equally influential realm of fiction literature. 'Cloudy with a Chance of Google Searches' by Fictional Data Analyst (2009) whimsically weaves a tale of airborne inquiries and meteorological musings, blurring the lines between fanciful storytelling and statistical analysis. Similarly, 'The Search for Serendipity' by Imaginary Behavioral Economist (2015) takes readers on a journey through the curious quest for unexpected connections, offering a fictional yet thought-provoking exploration of the potential influence of environmental factors on human curiosity.
In the realm of popular culture and internet phenomena, the infamous "The More You Know" meme, with its wry humor and unexpected tidbits of knowledge, serves as a lighthearted nod to the unanticipated correlations and peculiar findings that often arise in academic research. Additionally, the ubiquitous "Surprised Pikachu" meme encapsulates the reaction of many to the unexpected, and at times uproarious, discoveries that emerge from the marvelously quirky world of research.
As we navigate the scholarly waters of air quality and internet searches for 'how to make baby,' it becomes evident that the interplay between environmental influences and human curiosity is as unpredictable as a hiccup during a yoga class. With a nod to both empirical findings and whimsical diversions, our investigation seeks to unravel the delightful mystery of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum, promising to leave readers both enlightened and entertained.
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2023
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]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the sweet, salty air of Gulfport, Mississippi, where the breeze carries the playful whispers of the Gulf and possibly a hint of something else – a longing for new life, perhaps? In this fascinating paper, we dive headfirst into the peculiar connection between air quality and the curious, sometimes comical, Google searches for 'how to make baby.' As we embark on this whimsical journey through the data, let's don our proverbial snorkels and wade into the murky waters of statistical analysis, where the waves of correlation and causation may just carry us to unexpected shores.
Now, to those uninitiated in the delightful realm of academic research, the mere suggestion of a link between air quality and the stirrings of procreation may seem as curious as a shark with an allergy to seafood. But fear not, dear reader, for we assure you that this unusual pairing is not the result of someone spiking our beakers with laughter-inducing gas in the laboratory. Our intent is as pure as the driven snow – we seek to unravel the enigmatic relationship between environmental factors and the oh-so-human yearning for parenthood, all while sprinkling in a dash of statistical merriment and a whiff of dry humor.
You see, what sparked our interest in this offbeat inquiry was the ongoing debate in the scientific community about the influence of environmental conditions on human behavior. Could it be that the quality of the air we breathe may hold sway over our curiosity about the birds and the bees? Could the ebb and flow of pollutants in the atmosphere be entangled in the web of online searches for family planning? These questions floated around our minds like helium-filled balloons, begging to be investigated. And so, armed with the noble pursuit of knowledge and a generous pinch of scientific curiosity, we embarked on this peculiar quest.
Stay tuned, because what follows is a whimsical and wondrous exploration of the unexpected, where we unveil surprising correlations and dispel statistical myths with the flair of a magician revealing a hidden card up their sleeve. It's a scientific sleight of hand with a sprinkle of stardust, and it promises to leave you breathless – whether from the anticipation of discovery or the sheer audacity of our endeavor is entirely up to you. So, buckle up, hold your breath, and let the air of Gulfport carry us into the captivating tale of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To untangle the perplexing web of correlation between air quality and the peculiar proclivities of internet search behavior, our research team embarked on a methodological odyssey that would make even Odysseus raise an eyebrow in admiration. We harnessed the power of data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Google Trends, deftly navigating the labyrinthine paths of statistical analysis and online search patterns.
First, let's talk air quality. We pulled data from the EPA's treasure trove of atmospheric measurements, encompassing a wide array of pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Weaving through the intricate tapestry of air quality metrics, we sought to capture the very essence of Gulfport's atmospheric condition over the years 2004 to 2023. Our data wranglers utilized advanced statistical techniques to ensure that our sampling captured the nuances of Gulfport's air, much like a connoisseur savors the delicate notes of a fine wine.
Meanwhile, in the colorful realm of Google searches, we delved into the ever-shifting landscape of online inquiry. Armed with the noble quest of unraveling the mysteries of 'how to make baby,' we plumbed the depths of Google Trends for insights into the frequency and temporal patterns of this lighthearted query. We harnessed the power of search volume indices, riding the waves of internet curiosity like intrepid surfers on the wild seas of cyberspace.
But hold on to your lab coats, for here's where things take a whimsically wacky turn! In order to establish a robust foundation for our analysis, we employed a dance of statistical wizardry. As if invoking the spirits of correlation and regression, we summoned the mighty Pearson's correlation coefficient to gauge the strength and direction of the relationship between air quality and the frequency of 'how to make baby' searches. This statistical sleight of hand would serve as our compass in navigating the choppy waters of data, guiding us to the shores of significance with all the flair of a maestro conducting a symphony.
And just when you thought things couldn't get any more riveting, we sprinkled in a pinch of time-series analysis, capturing the temporal ebbs and flows of both air quality and search behavior. The result? A visual feast of trends and fluctuations, akin to watching a captivating ballet of statistical data pirouetting across the stage of inquiry.
With our methodological ensemble in full swing, we then indulged in the venerable art of hypothesis testing, beckoning the p-value to the grand stage of significance. A wink and a nod to the statistical gods, and behold – the p-value < 0.01, signaling a resonance worthy of the finest scientific symphony halls. This, dear reader, is where the magic happens: the moment when the mundane becomes extraordinary, and the whimsical becomes wondrous.
In conclusion, our research methodology served as a spirited tango between empirical rigor and whimsical charm, harmonizing the disparate elements of air quality and internet search behavior into a delightful pas de deux. So, dear reader, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a spellbinding journey as we unveil the enchanting results of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum.
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends .
For the time period 2004 to 2023, you found a correlation 0.9236762, r-squared of 0.8531777, 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]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the sweet, salty air of Gulfport, Mississippi, where the breeze carries the playful whispers of the Gulf and possibly a hint of something else – a longing for new life, perhaps? In this fascinating paper, we dive headfirst into the peculiar connection between air quality and the curious, sometimes comical, Google searches for 'how to make baby.' As we embark on this whimsical journey through the data, let's don our proverbial snorkels and wade into the murky waters of statistical analysis, where the waves of correlation and causation may just carry us to unexpected shores.
Now, to those uninitiated in the delightful realm of academic research, the mere suggestion of a link between air quality and the stirrings of procreation may seem as curious as a shark with an allergy to seafood. But fear not, dear reader, for we assure you that this unusual pairing is not the result of someone spiking our beakers with laughter-inducing gas in the laboratory. Our intent is as pure as the driven snow – we seek to unravel the enigmatic relationship between environmental factors and the oh-so-human yearning for parenthood, all while sprinkling in a dash of statistical merriment and a whiff of dry humor.
You see, what sparked our interest in this offbeat inquiry was the ongoing debate in the scientific community about the influence of environmental conditions on human behavior. Could it be that the quality of the air we breathe may hold sway over our curiosity about the birds and the bees? Could the ebb and flow of pollutants in the atmosphere be entangled in the web of online searches for family planning? These questions floated around our minds like helium-filled balloons, begging to be investigated. And so, armed with the noble pursuit of knowledge and a generous pinch of scientific curiosity, we embarked on this peculiar quest.
Stay tuned, because what follows is a whimsical and wondrous exploration of the unexpected, where we unveil surprising correlations and dispel statistical myths with the flair of a magician revealing a hidden card up their sleeve. It's a scientific sleight of hand with a sprinkle of stardust, and it promises to leave you breathless – whether from the anticipation of discovery or the sheer audacity of our endeavor is entirely up to you. So, buckle up, hold your breath, and let the air of Gulfport carry us into the captivating tale of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Upon analyzing the data, we found a rather astonishing correlation between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby' on Google. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and an r-squared of 0.8531777 left us feeling breathless, as if we had just run a marathon through a field of statistical significance.
To illustrate this compelling connection, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that visually depicts the robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The scatterplot is as captivating as a stand-up comedy show, with data points dancing around the line of best fit like performers on a stage, showcasing the undeniable rapport between air quality and the desire to expand one's nest.
Our findings suggest that the air quality in Gulfport may have a greater impact on online curiosity about baby-making than previously anticipated. This discovery may just blow a breath of fresh air into the field of public health and online search behavior, leading to a renaissance of inquiry into the whimsical ways in which environmental factors influence human endeavors.
The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a layer of statistical gravitas to our findings, signaling that this relationship is not merely a fluke but a substantial and genuine phenomenon. It appears that the air of Gulfport may not only shape the waves on the Gulf but also sway the waves of thought in the virtual ocean of internet searches.
In conclusion, our study offers a lighthearted, yet meaningful, insight into the interplay between air quality and the curious musings of internet users. It reminds us that amidst the serious endeavors of scientific inquiry, there may be moments of unexpected merriment and delightful correlations waiting to be uncovered, much like a hidden treasure chest in the sea of data.
And so, with a chuckle and a raised eyebrow, we invite the scientific community to join us in this whimsical reverie and embrace the buoyant union of research and amusement in unraveling the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum.
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their groundbreaking study, Smith, Doe, and Jones (2015) shed light on the impact of air quality on human behavior, outlining the potential connections between environmental conditions and internet search behavior. Their findings, while initially met with skepticism, provided a foundation for further exploration into the whimsical world of online inquiries and environmental factors. Similarly, the work of Brown and Johnson (2018) delved into the intricate web of air quality and its potential influence on human interests, paving the way for our peculiar investigation into the correlation between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and Google searches for 'how to make baby.' The links between seemingly unrelated phenomena, much like the unexpected bond between peanut butter and pickles, continue to intrigue researchers and tickle the funny bone of academic curiosities.
Turning to non-fiction literature, 'The Air We Breathe: From Emissions to Emotions' by Environmentalist et al. (2017) offers a comprehensive examination of the far-reaching effects of air quality on human experiences, leaving no stone unturned in their exploration of the atmospheric influence on everyday life. In a similar vein, 'The Curious Case of Curious Searches' by Online Etiquette Expert (2020) delves into the curious, comical, and sometimes confounding nature of internet searches, providing an insightful perspective on the seemingly perplexing queries that emanate from the depths of cyberspace.
Now, in a deviation from the typical academic trajectory, we must call attention to the equally influential realm of fiction literature. 'Cloudy with a Chance of Google Searches' by Fictional Data Analyst (2009) whimsically weaves a tale of airborne inquiries and meteorological musings, blurring the lines between fanciful storytelling and statistical analysis. Similarly, 'The Search for Serendipity' by Imaginary Behavioral Economist (2015) takes readers on a journey through the curious quest for unexpected connections, offering a fictional yet thought-provoking exploration of the potential influence of environmental factors on human curiosity.
In the realm of popular culture and internet phenomena, the infamous "The More You Know" meme, with its wry humor and unexpected tidbits of knowledge, serves as a lighthearted nod to the unanticipated correlations and peculiar findings that often arise in academic research. Additionally, the ubiquitous "Surprised Pikachu" meme encapsulates the reaction of many to the unexpected, and at times uproarious, discoveries that emerge from the marvelously quirky world of research.
As we navigate the scholarly waters of air quality and internet searches for 'how to make baby,' it becomes evident that the interplay between environmental influences and human curiosity is as unpredictable as a hiccup during a yoga class. With a nod to both empirical findings and whimsical diversions, our investigation seeks to unravel the delightful mystery of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum, promising to leave readers both enlightened and entertained.
[[RESULTS]]
Upon analyzing the data, we found a rather astonishing correlation between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby' on Google. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and an r-squared of 0.8531777 left us feeling breathless, as if we had just run a marathon through a field of statistical significance.
To illustrate this compelling connection, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that visually depicts the robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The scatterplot is as captivating as a stand-up comedy show, with data points dancing around the line of best fit like performers on a stage, showcasing the undeniable rapport between air quality and the desire to expand one's nest.
Our findings suggest that the air quality in Gulfport may have a greater impact on online curiosity about baby-making than previously anticipated. This discovery may just blow a breath of fresh air into the field of public health and online search behavior, leading to a renaissance of inquiry into the whimsical ways in which environmental factors influence human endeavors.
The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a layer of statistical gravitas to our findings, signaling that this relationship is not merely a fluke but a substantial and genuine phenomenon. It appears that the air of Gulfport may not only shape the waves on the Gulf but also sway the waves of thought in the virtual ocean of internet searches.
In conclusion, our study offers a lighthearted, yet meaningful, insight into the interplay between air quality and the curious musings of internet users. It reminds us that amidst the serious endeavors of scientific inquiry, there may be moments of unexpected merriment and delightful correlations waiting to be uncovered, much like a hidden treasure chest in the sea of data.
And so, with a chuckle and a raised eyebrow, we invite the scientific community to join us in this whimsical reverie and embrace the buoyant union of research and amusement in unraveling the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our investigation into the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum has left us flying high on a cloud of statistical significance. The findings of our study support the prior research that hinted at the unexpected influence of environmental conditions on human behavior and curiosities. Just as peanut butter and pickles have defied culinary norms to form a delectable duo, our study has uncovered a surprising relationship between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.'
In line with the work of Smith, Doe, and Jones (2015), our results reinforce the notion that the air we breathe may not only affect our lungs but also tickle our interests and prompt peculiar queries in the digital realm. Brown and Johnson's (2018) exploration of air quality as an unseen puppeteer of human curiosities finds further validation in our study, as we unveil the whimsical dance of air quality and internet searches for baby-making guidance.
Our unexpected foray into the world of fiction literature, with nods to 'Cloudy with a Chance of Google Searches' by Fictional Data Analyst (2009) and 'The Search for Serendipity' by Imaginary Behavioral Economist (2015), has sparked a serious investigation into the comical potential connections between environmental factors and human curiosity. This playful dive into the playful world of literature has not only entertained but also inspired our research efforts, demonstrating that scholarly pursuits need not always be as serious as a game of chess between Nobel laureates.
The connection we have uncovered between air quality and the urge to delve into the intricacies of baby-making may seem as unexpected as a flash mob in a library, but it underlines the importance of exploring the multifaceted influence of environmental conditions on human interests. Our findings unveil a correlation coefficient as strong as a superhero's grip, affirming the robustness of this whimsical connection.
It is with great anticipation and a hint of amusement that we ponder the implications of our study. Could air quality be the unsung conductor orchestrating a symphony of internet inquiries? This lighthearted inquiry into the air quality-baby dance may not only entertain but also propel future research endeavors into the tantalizing terrain of unexpected correlations and bizarre associations, painting a picture of scientific inquiry as gleeful as a clownfish in anemone.
As we traverse the scholarly landscape, let us not forget to embrace the humor and merriment that can accompany the pursuit of knowledge. The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum serves as a reminder that amidst the serious pursuit of scientific inquiry, there may lie moments of delightful discovery and unexpected correlations, just waiting to be uncovered like a clownfish seeking refuge in the serenity of anemone.
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 Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi and Google searches for 'how to make baby'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the sweet, salty air of Gulfport, Mississippi, where the breeze carries the playful whispers of the Gulf and possibly a hint of something else – a longing for new life, perhaps? In this fascinating paper, we dive headfirst into the peculiar connection between air quality and the curious, sometimes comical, Google searches for 'how to make baby.' As we embark on this whimsical journey through the data, let's don our proverbial snorkels and wade into the murky waters of statistical analysis, where the waves of correlation and causation may just carry us to unexpected shores.
Now, to those uninitiated in the delightful realm of academic research, the mere suggestion of a link between air quality and the stirrings of procreation may seem as curious as a shark with an allergy to seafood. But fear not, dear reader, for we assure you that this unusual pairing is not the result of someone spiking our beakers with laughter-inducing gas in the laboratory. Our intent is as pure as the driven snow – we seek to unravel the enigmatic relationship between environmental factors and the oh-so-human yearning for parenthood, all while sprinkling in a dash of statistical merriment and a whiff of dry humor.
You see, what sparked our interest in this offbeat inquiry was the ongoing debate in the scientific community about the influence of environmental conditions on human behavior. Could it be that the quality of the air we breathe may hold sway over our curiosity about the birds and the bees? Could the ebb and flow of pollutants in the atmosphere be entangled in the web of online searches for family planning? These questions floated around our minds like helium-filled balloons, begging to be investigated. And so, armed with the noble pursuit of knowledge and a generous pinch of scientific curiosity, we embarked on this peculiar quest.
Stay tuned, because what follows is a whimsical and wondrous exploration of the unexpected, where we unveil surprising correlations and dispel statistical myths with the flair of a magician revealing a hidden card up their sleeve. It's a scientific sleight of hand with a sprinkle of stardust, and it promises to leave you breathless – whether from the anticipation of discovery or the sheer audacity of our endeavor is entirely up to you. So, buckle up, hold your breath, and let the air of Gulfport carry us into the captivating tale of the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum!
[[RESULTS]]
Upon analyzing the data, we found a rather astonishing correlation between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby' on Google. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and an r-squared of 0.8531777 left us feeling breathless, as if we had just run a marathon through a field of statistical significance.
To illustrate this compelling connection, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that visually depicts the robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The scatterplot is as captivating as a stand-up comedy show, with data points dancing around the line of best fit like performers on a stage, showcasing the undeniable rapport between air quality and the desire to expand one's nest.
Our findings suggest that the air quality in Gulfport may have a greater impact on online curiosity about baby-making than previously anticipated. This discovery may just blow a breath of fresh air into the field of public health and online search behavior, leading to a renaissance of inquiry into the whimsical ways in which environmental factors influence human endeavors.
The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a layer of statistical gravitas to our findings, signaling that this relationship is not merely a fluke but a substantial and genuine phenomenon. It appears that the air of Gulfport may not only shape the waves on the Gulf but also sway the waves of thought in the virtual ocean of internet searches.
In conclusion, our study offers a lighthearted, yet meaningful, insight into the interplay between air quality and the curious musings of internet users. It reminds us that amidst the serious endeavors of scientific inquiry, there may be moments of unexpected merriment and delightful correlations waiting to be uncovered, much like a hidden treasure chest in the sea of data.
And so, with a chuckle and a raised eyebrow, we invite the scientific community to join us in this whimsical reverie and embrace the buoyant union of research and amusement in unraveling the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, it seems that the air in Gulfport is not just filled with oxygen and a touch of salt from the Gulf; it also carries the whimsical whispers of baby-making curiosity. Our findings have blown the lid off this surprising correlation, leaving us all feeling breathless with disbelief and amusement.
The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and an r-squared of 0.8531777 came at us like a statistical hurricane, sweeping away any doubts about the connection between air quality and the urge to expand one's family tree. It's as if the Gulfport air whispered a secret to Google searches, and the rest is a statistical comedy of errors.
What lies before us is not just a study, but a journey into the unexpected, where the serious business of scientific inquiry meets the lighthearted hilarity of uncovering correlations that raise a quizzical eyebrow and part our lips into a smile. It's as if statistical significance itself has developed a comical sense of timing, delivering a punchline in the midst of hypothesis-testing.
So, as we wrap up this quirky inquiry into the Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum, we urge the scientific community to take a deep breath and bask in the mirthful interplay of environmental factors and human curiosity. After all, we've uncovered a correlation as unmistakable as a flamingo in a flock of pigeons.
In the grand tradition of comedic magicians, we proudly unveil our final act and assert with a chuckle that, in the realm of air quality and searches for 'how to make baby', no more research is needed. Our findings stand as a testament to the delightful surprises that await those who delve into the wondrous and whimsical world of scientific investigation.
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 Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Atmospheric Babysitting and Environmental Quandaries
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 Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for Environmental Health Advancements and Research (SEHAR)
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 Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum with an abstract of This study delves into the whimsical world of Google searches and air quality, exploring the connection between air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the frequency of searches for 'how to make baby.' Utilizing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and Google Trends, our research team conducted a thorough analysis spanning the years 2004 to 2023. The correlation coefficient of 0.9236762 and p-value < 0.01 left us all gasping for air, but not without a few chuckles. The results suggest a significant correlation between air quality in Gulfport and the frequency of searches on the rather cheeky topic of baby-making. Our findings may prompt a breath of fresh air in the field of public health and internet search behavior.
ChatGPT:
air quality Gulfport, Mississippi, Google search frequency, how to make baby searches, Environmental Protection Agency data, Google Trends analysis, correlation coefficient, public health, internet search behavior
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Air quality in Gulfport, MississippiDetailed data title: Percentage of days with good air quality in Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi
Google searches for 'how to make baby'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to make baby' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to make baby'
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 = 0.8531777 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to make baby') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi) over the 20 years from 2004 through 2023.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.3E-9. 0.0000000063127046139018710000
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 0.92 in 6.3E-7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 158,410,707 random variables You don't actually need 158 million 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 19 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 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.
[ 0.81, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi (Good air quality) | 0.473538 | 0.34626 | 0.4 | 0.484931 | 0.513514 | 0.637427 | 0.557692 | 0.665753 | 0.718232 | 0.812155 | 0.731507 | 0.750685 | 0.843407 | 0.812155 | 0.763736 | 0.723288 | 0.677871 | 0.75 | 0.734247 | 0.668508 |
Google searches for 'how to make baby' (Rel. search volume) | 21.1667 | 21.9167 | 22 | 26.0833 | 33.5 | 45.25 | 58 | 62.3333 | 75.5 | 86.5 | 88.0833 | 90.0833 | 83.0833 | 82.75 | 74.4167 | 65.25 | 72.0833 | 62.9167 | 61.5 | 58.7778 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([0.473538,0.34626,0.4,0.484931,0.513514,0.637427,0.557692,0.665753,0.718232,0.812155,0.731507,0.750685,0.843407,0.812155,0.763736,0.723288,0.677871,0.75,0.734247,0.668508,])
array_2 = np.array([21.1667,21.9167,22,26.0833,33.5,45.25,58,62.3333,75.5,86.5,88.0833,90.0833,83.0833,82.75,74.4167,65.25,72.0833,62.9167,61.5,58.7778,])
array_1_name = "Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to make baby'"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Air quality in Gulfport, Mississippi
- Line chart for only Google searches for 'how to make baby'
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Breathless in Gulfport: The Air-Quality-Baby Conundrum
Your rating is stellar!
Correlation ID: 4607 · Black Variable ID: 21702 · Red Variable ID: 1486