Report an error
Popularity of the first name Liam correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Biomass power generated in Brazil | r=0.99 | 42yrs | No |
Geothermal power generated in New Zealand | r=0.99 | 42yrs | No |
Number of internet users | r=0.97 | 24yrs | No |
Google searches for 'tummy ache' | r=0.97 | 19yrs | No |
Solar power generated in Czechia | r=0.97 | 29yrs | Yes! |
Solar power generated in Bulgaria | r=0.95 | 13yrs | No |
Intel Corporation's annual revenue | r=0.95 | 36yrs | No |
Robberies in North Dakota | r=0.95 | 38yrs | No |
Google searches for 'highest paying jobs' | r=0.95 | 19yrs | No |
The price of gold | r=0.92 | 40yrs | No |
Total number of live births in Australia | r=0.91 | 48yrs | No |
Google searches for 'i cant even' | r=0.9 | 19yrs | No |
Automotive recalls for issues with the Power Train | r=0.89 | 48yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Liam 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.)