Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'burn centers' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Popularity of the 'thanks obama' meme | r=0.97 | 17yrs | Yes! |
The number of special education teachers in Utah | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
How 'hip and with it' LockPickingLawyer YouTube video titles are | r=0.95 | 9yrs | No |
The number of environmental science teachers in Missouri | r=0.91 | 13yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Maryland | r=0.9 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Average views of AsapSCIENCE YouTube videos | r=0.9 | 12yrs | No |
Wind power generated in Samoa | r=0.88 | 8yrs | No |
Average views of CGP Grey YouTube videos | r=0.87 | 13yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Brittni | r=0.84 | 9yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Bahrain | r=0.83 | 18yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'dumb ways to die' meme | r=0.82 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'doge' meme | r=0.72 | 18yrs | No |
Rain in Albuquerque | r=0.59 | 20yrs | No |
NASA's budget appropriation | r=-0.83 | 20yrs | No |
Google searches for 'burn centers' also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)