Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'climate change' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of art directors in Texas | r=0.96 | 15yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Georgia | r=0.95 | 6yrs | No |
The number of concierges in Maryland | r=0.92 | 15yrs | No |
Average length of SciShow Space YouTube videos | r=0.91 | 10yrs | No |
Number of Grand Slam Finals played by Roger Federer | r=0.91 | 8yrs | Yes! |
NVIDIA's stock price (NVDA) | r=0.9 | 16yrs | No |
The number of university cultural studies teachers in Georgia | r=0.89 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Powerball lottery numbers | r=0.88 | 13yrs | No |
The number of janitors and cleaners in Iowa | r=0.84 | 15yrs | No |
Aggregate score of losing team in Copa Sudamericana Finals | r=0.83 | 6yrs | No |
Searches for 'never gonna give you up' | r=0.83 | 16yrs | No |
The number of hosts and hostesses in restaurants in Vermont | r=0.63 | 15yrs | No |
Google searches for 'climate change' 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.)