Report an error
Popularity of the first name Emma correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Geothermal power generated in Italy | r=0.97 | 42yrs | No |
| Electricity generation in Barbados | r=0.96 | 42yrs | No |
| Nuclear power generation in South Korea | r=0.96 | 42yrs | No |
| The number of secretaries in Vermont | r=0.95 | 13yrs | No |
| Number of Las Vegas Hotel Room Check-Ins | r=0.95 | 39yrs | No |
| UFO sightings in California | r=0.95 | 47yrs | No |
| US kids in public school | r=0.93 | 33yrs | No |
| Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion | r=0.91 | 44yrs | No |
| Average milk produced per cow in the US | r=0.89 | 43yrs | No |
| Frank Lampard's appearances for the England national team | r=0.77 | 18yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' | r=0.76 | 19yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Emma 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.)