about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,199 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and the second variable is Kerosene used in Norway.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The decrease in air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania led to a reduction in the population of pollution-loving airborne kerosene-eating microbes. These microbes, which had inadvertently hitchhiked their way to Norway, had developed a taste for kerosene, causing a significant decrease in its availability. As the kerosene-eating microbes found an alternative and switched to feasting on the pollutants in Reading, their distant cousins in Norway were left hungry and had to seek out a new source of sustenance. This unexpected chain of events highlights the interconnectedness of ecosystems on a global scale and the importance of considering all potential consequences of environmental changes.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a bustling cityscape with the sun breaking through the clouds in Reading, Pennsylvania. The skyline should show signs of air pollution dissipating, with clear blue skies and birds beginning to appear. In the foreground, depict a group of animated, colorful airborne microbes in search of a new food source, displaying distinctive characteristics that hint at their consumption of pollutants. In contrast, show a tranquil rural scene in Norway, with abandoned kerosene tanks and an environment untouched by pollution. The airborne microbes in Norway should be depicted as struggling and disoriented, highlighting their dependence on kerosene as a food source. The scene should evoke a sense of contrast and change as the natural world adapts to the reduction of pollution in Reading and the repercussions in Norway. The overall style should be hyper-realistic, with attention to detail in both environmental elements and the microbial characters. 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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. 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: Charcoal Magic realism Voxel art Low poly Hyper-realistic
ChatGPT: Hyper-realistic

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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway, in the following situation: The decrease in air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania led to a reduction in the population of pollution-loving airborne kerosene-eating microbes. These microbes, which had inadvertently hitchhiked their way to Norway, had developed a taste for kerosene, causing a significant decrease in its availability. As the kerosene-eating microbes found an alternative and switched to feasting on the pollutants in Reading, their distant cousins in Norway were left hungry and had to seek out a new source of sustenance. This unexpected chain of events highlights the interconnectedness of ecosystems on a global scale and the importance of considering all potential consequences of environmental changes.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Reading, Pennsylvania, the skies clear as air pollution decreases, while in Norway, kerosene tanks sit unused as their contents dwindle. A hungry group of airborne microbes buzzes over the city, searching for a new food source after feasting on pollutants in Reading. Their cousins in Norway, accustomed to kerosene, struggle to find a new source of sustenance.

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: [ Hyper-realistic ] and depicting this scene: In Reading, Pennsylvania, the skies clear as air pollution decreases, while in Norway, kerosene tanks sit unused as their contents dwindle. A hungry group of airborne microbes buzzes over the city, searching for a new food source after feasting on pollutants in Reading. Their cousins in Norway, accustomed to kerosene, struggle to find a new source of sustenance. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a bustling cityscape with the sun breaking through the clouds in Reading, Pennsylvania. The skyline should show signs of air pollution dissipating, with clear blue skies and birds beginning to appear. In the foreground, depict a group of animated, colorful airborne microbes in search of a new food source, displaying distinctive characteristics that hint at their consumption of pollutants. In contrast, show a tranquil rural scene in Norway, with abandoned kerosene tanks and an environment untouched by pollution. The airborne microbes in Norway should be depicted as struggling and disoriented, highlighting their dependence on kerosene as a food source. The scene should evoke a sense of contrast and change as the natural world adapts to the reduction of pollution in Reading and the repercussions in Norway. The overall style should be hyper-realistic, with attention to detail in both environmental elements and the microbial characters.

*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.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
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 a decrease in Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania caused Kerosene used in Norway to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

The Journal of Ecological Quandaries

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2022.

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]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Embarking on a scientific investigation often feels like starting a treasure hunt, armed with nothing but a compass and a curious mind. Our quest led us to unravel the surprising and sooty connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was as unexpected as finding a fridge in an art museum - a curious pairing indeed!

As researchers, it's our duty to go where the data leads us, whether it's down a delightfully bizarre path or through the tranquil fields of conventionality. And in this case, the data certainly led us down one of the more unexpected and uncharted routes.

But hey, in the world of research, unexpected discoveries are the diamonds hidden in the statistical rough. As we dived into the numbers, crunching data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we were like explorers on the trail of a rare species - except the species in question turned out to be the elusive relationship between soot and kerosene!

It's almost as though the data was whispering secrets to us, beckoning us to uncover a connection that seemed as unlikely as a penguin waddling through the Sahara. But jokes aside, our findings were no laughing matter – we identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a statistically robust relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was a statistical "Eureka!" moment, punctuated with a hearty guffaw.

As we delved deeper into the implications of our findings, it was like piecing together a puzzle with pieces that came from two entirely different sets. Imagine finding the missing jigsaw piece for your mundane Monday morning puzzle in the middle of the Amazon rainforest – that's the kind of bewildering scenario we were faced with.

However, our research wasn't just a surprising spectacle; it opened a window into the global interconnectedness of environmental variables, reminding us that even the most peculiar pairings can shed light on pressing environmental issues. After all, in the world of environmental research, where the air might be filled with complex molecules and statistical uncertainties, a little levity now and then can be a breath of fresh air!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Embarking on a scientific investigation often feels like starting a treasure hunt, armed with nothing but a compass and a curious mind. Our quest led us to unravel the surprising and sooty connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was as unexpected as finding a fridge in an art museum - a curious pairing indeed!
As researchers, it's our duty to go where the data leads us, whether it's down a delightfully bizarre path or through the tranquil fields of conventionality. And in this case, the data certainly led us down one of the more unexpected and uncharted routes.
But hey, in the world of research, unexpected discoveries are the diamonds hidden in the statistical rough. As we dived into the numbers, crunching data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we were like explorers on the trail of a rare species - except the species in question turned out to be the elusive relationship between soot and kerosene!
It's almost as though the data was whispering secrets to us, beckoning us to uncover a connection that seemed as unlikely as a penguin waddling through the Sahara. But jokes aside, our findings were no laughing matter – we identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a statistically robust relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was a statistical "Eureka!" moment, punctuated with a hearty guffaw.
As we delved deeper into the implications of our findings, it was like piecing together a puzzle with pieces that came from two entirely different sets. Imagine finding the missing jigsaw piece for your mundane Monday morning puzzle in the middle of the Amazon rainforest – that's the kind of bewildering scenario we were faced with.
However, our research wasn't just a surprising spectacle; it opened a window into the global interconnectedness of environmental variables, reminding us that even the most peculiar pairings can shed light on pressing environmental issues. After all, in the world of environmental research, where the air might be filled with complex molecules and statistical uncertainties, a little levity now and then can be a breath of fresh air!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Sooty Puzzle: Exploring the Relationship Between Air Pollution and Kerosene Consumption," Smith et al. examine the unexpected connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. The authors employ a comprehensive statistical analysis and delve into the intricate nuances of these seemingly disparate factors. They discover a significant correlation coefficient and point to the need for further investigation into this peculiar relationship.

Moving on from the serious tone, let's take a step into the realm of non-fiction books related to the topic. In "Energy and Environment: The Practical Consequences of Connection," Doe provides a thorough examination of the intertwined dynamics of energy usage and environmental impact, shedding light on the relevance of our research. Amidst the academic rigor, "The Economics of Air Quality and Kerosene Markets" by Jones offers valuable insights into the economic implications of addressing air pollution and kerosene consumption, providing a sobering backdrop to our more lighthearted exploration.

Bridging the gap between fiction and reality, let's take a whimsical turn and consider the potential interplay between literature and our research. "Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell, with its interconnected narratives spanning time and space, serves as a metaphorical parallel to the intercontinental link we've uncovered. Continuing this trend, "Throne of Glass" by Sarah J. Maas and "Kerosene" by Chris Wooding infuse elements of mystery and unexpected connections, mirroring the surprising relationship between our environmental variables.

As we veer further off the conventional path, we turn to popular culture for its quirky lens on unexpected relationships. Comic strip classics like "The Far Side" by Gary Larson and "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson remind us that the seemingly absurd can hold a mirror to reality, much like our unlikely correlation between air pollution and kerosene consumption. And who could forget the iconic duo of Tom and Jerry, whose comical escapades reflect the interconnectedness of diverse elements, much like our findings in the environmental sphere?

In summary, our literature review spans the spectrum from serious academic works to the realms of fiction and popular culture, highlighting the wide-ranging implications of our research. It's like studying soot and kerosene – a mix of the serious and the delightfully unexpected, serving as a reminder that even in the world of research, a little humor goes a long way in adding a breath of fresh air.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2022

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]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Embarking on a scientific investigation often feels like starting a treasure hunt, armed with nothing but a compass and a curious mind. Our quest led us to unravel the surprising and sooty connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was as unexpected as finding a fridge in an art museum - a curious pairing indeed!
As researchers, it's our duty to go where the data leads us, whether it's down a delightfully bizarre path or through the tranquil fields of conventionality. And in this case, the data certainly led us down one of the more unexpected and uncharted routes.
But hey, in the world of research, unexpected discoveries are the diamonds hidden in the statistical rough. As we dived into the numbers, crunching data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we were like explorers on the trail of a rare species - except the species in question turned out to be the elusive relationship between soot and kerosene!
It's almost as though the data was whispering secrets to us, beckoning us to uncover a connection that seemed as unlikely as a penguin waddling through the Sahara. But jokes aside, our findings were no laughing matter – we identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a statistically robust relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was a statistical "Eureka!" moment, punctuated with a hearty guffaw.
As we delved deeper into the implications of our findings, it was like piecing together a puzzle with pieces that came from two entirely different sets. Imagine finding the missing jigsaw piece for your mundane Monday morning puzzle in the middle of the Amazon rainforest – that's the kind of bewildering scenario we were faced with.
However, our research wasn't just a surprising spectacle; it opened a window into the global interconnectedness of environmental variables, reminding us that even the most peculiar pairings can shed light on pressing environmental issues. After all, in the world of environmental research, where the air might be filled with complex molecules and statistical uncertainties, a little levity now and then can be a breath of fresh air!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To better understand the intriguing relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway, our research team employed a concoction of statistical methods that would make even a mad scientist proud. We collected data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, utilizing information spanning from 1980 to 2022. Our data collection process was as meticulous as a DNA analysis, ensuring that no outlier was left unturned.

After assembling our dataset, we set out to explore the connection between these two seemingly disparate variables. With a twinkle in our eyes and a hefty dose of caffeinated beverages, we embarked on a statistical adventure, blending regression analysis with time series modeling. It was like solving a complex puzzle, except the pieces were made of pixels and statistical equations. We also conducted a Granger causality test in an attempt to untangle the intriguing web of causation between air pollution and kerosene consumption. It was a bit like trying to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg, only in this case, it was soot or kerosene!

In addition to our statistical wizardry, we leveraged geographic information systems (GIS) to map out the spatial distribution of air pollution in Reading and track the ethereal journey of kerosene emissions across the Atlantic to Norway. It was like crafting a digital treasure map, only instead of 'X' marking the spot, it was a trail of soot and kerosene leading us on a transcontinental adventure.

To ensure our findings were as robust as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, we rigorously validated our models using cross-validation techniques and sensitivity analyses. We left no stone unturned in our quest for statistical significance, ensuring that our results were as sturdy as a Viking ship navigating the stormy seas of empirical inquiry.

Furthermore, we employed advanced econometric methods to control for potential confounding variables, treating them with the care and attention one would lavish on delicate laboratory equipment. We crafted models with more precision than a Swiss watchmaker, meticulously adjusting for factors such as economic development, population density, and meteorological conditions that could influence both air pollution levels in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway.

As we navigated the seas of statistical analysis, our research was guided by the mantra "correlation does not imply causation" like a North Star guiding sailors across the ocean. We remained steadfast in our commitment to unraveling the intricacies of this peculiar relationship, ensuring that our findings were grounded in sound statistical reasoning. It was a bit like performing a tightrope walk – one wrong statistical step, and the entire endeavor could veer into the realm of absurdity.

We acknowledge the limitations of our methods, like realizing that even the most robust statistical frameworks have their boundaries. In light of these limitations, we advanced with caution and humility, recognizing that the scientific journey is as much about the process as it is about the destination. And with our proverbial lab coats donned and our statistical compasses in hand, we set sail on a scholarly odyssey to uncover the enigmatic ties between soot and kerosene.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8486627, r-squared of 0.7202283, 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]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Embarking on a scientific investigation often feels like starting a treasure hunt, armed with nothing but a compass and a curious mind. Our quest led us to unravel the surprising and sooty connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was as unexpected as finding a fridge in an art museum - a curious pairing indeed!
As researchers, it's our duty to go where the data leads us, whether it's down a delightfully bizarre path or through the tranquil fields of conventionality. And in this case, the data certainly led us down one of the more unexpected and uncharted routes.
But hey, in the world of research, unexpected discoveries are the diamonds hidden in the statistical rough. As we dived into the numbers, crunching data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we were like explorers on the trail of a rare species - except the species in question turned out to be the elusive relationship between soot and kerosene!
It's almost as though the data was whispering secrets to us, beckoning us to uncover a connection that seemed as unlikely as a penguin waddling through the Sahara. But jokes aside, our findings were no laughing matter – we identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a statistically robust relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was a statistical "Eureka!" moment, punctuated with a hearty guffaw.
As we delved deeper into the implications of our findings, it was like piecing together a puzzle with pieces that came from two entirely different sets. Imagine finding the missing jigsaw piece for your mundane Monday morning puzzle in the middle of the Amazon rainforest – that's the kind of bewildering scenario we were faced with.
However, our research wasn't just a surprising spectacle; it opened a window into the global interconnectedness of environmental variables, reminding us that even the most peculiar pairings can shed light on pressing environmental issues. After all, in the world of environmental research, where the air might be filled with complex molecules and statistical uncertainties, a little levity now and then can be a breath of fresh air!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627, indicating a strong positive association between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. This finding suggests that as one variable increases, the other tends to follow suit, almost like two dance partners performing a well-choreographed routine. It's as if the soot in Reading is doing the tango with the kerosene in Norway – talk about a cross-continental dance-off!

The r-squared value of 0.7202283 further underscores the robustness of this relationship, explaining approximately 72% of the variance in kerosene consumption based on the levels of air pollution. This level of predictability is akin to knowing that every time you add mentos to a bottle of soda, there's going to be an explosive reaction – except in this case, it's the statistical correlations that are popping!

In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that the observed relationship is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, providing strong evidence in support of our hypothesis. It's like winning the statistical jackpot – we hit the research lottery with these findings!

Furthermore, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually depicts the pronounced relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. The data points form a nearly linear pattern, resembling two friends walking in step, hand in hand, through the convoluted maze of environmental variables. It's a comforting sight, knowing that even in the world of statistical analysis, there's a sense of harmony between seemingly disparate factors.

Ultimately, our study not only illuminates the unexpected association between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway, but also highlights the interconnectedness of environmental phenomena on a global scale. It's a reminder that in the complex web of statistical relationships and scientific inquiry, there's always room for a bit of whimsy and wonder – after all, laughter might just be the best statistical medicine!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Sooty Puzzle: Exploring the Relationship Between Air Pollution and Kerosene Consumption," Smith et al. examine the unexpected connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. The authors employ a comprehensive statistical analysis and delve into the intricate nuances of these seemingly disparate factors. They discover a significant correlation coefficient and point to the need for further investigation into this peculiar relationship.
Moving on from the serious tone, let's take a step into the realm of non-fiction books related to the topic. In "Energy and Environment: The Practical Consequences of Connection," Doe provides a thorough examination of the intertwined dynamics of energy usage and environmental impact, shedding light on the relevance of our research. Amidst the academic rigor, "The Economics of Air Quality and Kerosene Markets" by Jones offers valuable insights into the economic implications of addressing air pollution and kerosene consumption, providing a sobering backdrop to our more lighthearted exploration.
Bridging the gap between fiction and reality, let's take a whimsical turn and consider the potential interplay between literature and our research. "Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell, with its interconnected narratives spanning time and space, serves as a metaphorical parallel to the intercontinental link we've uncovered. Continuing this trend, "Throne of Glass" by Sarah J. Maas and "Kerosene" by Chris Wooding infuse elements of mystery and unexpected connections, mirroring the surprising relationship between our environmental variables.
As we veer further off the conventional path, we turn to popular culture for its quirky lens on unexpected relationships. Comic strip classics like "The Far Side" by Gary Larson and "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson remind us that the seemingly absurd can hold a mirror to reality, much like our unlikely correlation between air pollution and kerosene consumption. And who could forget the iconic duo of Tom and Jerry, whose comical escapades reflect the interconnectedness of diverse elements, much like our findings in the environmental sphere?
In summary, our literature review spans the spectrum from serious academic works to the realms of fiction and popular culture, highlighting the wide-ranging implications of our research. It's like studying soot and kerosene – a mix of the serious and the delightfully unexpected, serving as a reminder that even in the world of research, a little humor goes a long way in adding a breath of fresh air.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627, indicating a strong positive association between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. This finding suggests that as one variable increases, the other tends to follow suit, almost like two dance partners performing a well-choreographed routine. It's as if the soot in Reading is doing the tango with the kerosene in Norway – talk about a cross-continental dance-off!
The r-squared value of 0.7202283 further underscores the robustness of this relationship, explaining approximately 72% of the variance in kerosene consumption based on the levels of air pollution. This level of predictability is akin to knowing that every time you add mentos to a bottle of soda, there's going to be an explosive reaction – except in this case, it's the statistical correlations that are popping!
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that the observed relationship is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, providing strong evidence in support of our hypothesis. It's like winning the statistical jackpot – we hit the research lottery with these findings!
Furthermore, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually depicts the pronounced relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. The data points form a nearly linear pattern, resembling two friends walking in step, hand in hand, through the convoluted maze of environmental variables. It's a comforting sight, knowing that even in the world of statistical analysis, there's a sense of harmony between seemingly disparate factors.
Ultimately, our study not only illuminates the unexpected association between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway, but also highlights the interconnectedness of environmental phenomena on a global scale. It's a reminder that in the complex web of statistical relationships and scientific inquiry, there's always room for a bit of whimsy and wonder – after all, laughter might just be the best statistical medicine!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study has unearthed a significant and eerie connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. It's as unexpected as finding a penguin in a sauna – but our statistical analysis paints a clear picture of this unlikely relationship. Building upon the previous work of Smith et al., our findings provide robust support for the sooty puzzle they initially uncovered. It's like two peas in a pod, except in this case, it's two environmental factors in a statistical model!

The correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 indicates a strong positive association between the variables, much like the unbreakable bond between salt and pepper. It's almost as if the soot particles from Reading are embarking on a transcontinental adventure to cozy up with the kerosene in Norway – it's like a long-distance love story, but with more particulate matter!

Our r-squared value of 0.7202283 suggests that approximately 72% of the variance in kerosene consumption can be explained by the levels of air pollution. This level of predictability is akin to knowing with certainty that the sun will rise each morning – with statistics, as with sunrises, a little consistency goes a long way!

The p-value of less than 0.01 confirms that the observed relationship is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance alone. It's like finding a statistically significant four-leaf clover in a field of p-values – our results are the lucky charm of environmental research!

Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually captures the tight embrace between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. The nearly linear pattern conveys a sense of inevitability, like two intertwined destinies hurtling through the realm of statistics. It's a statistical waltz, with air pollution and kerosene gracefully twirling across the graph.

In closing, our research not only solidifies the connection between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway, but also emphasizes the global interplay of environmental factors. It's a statistical symphony, where even the most unexpected duets can produce a harmonious melody. And in the dance of statistical relationships, as in life, sometimes the most unlikely pairs create the most captivating performances!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene used in Norway. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.

It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.

On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!

This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Embarking on a scientific investigation often feels like starting a treasure hunt, armed with nothing but a compass and a curious mind. Our quest led us to unravel the surprising and sooty connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was as unexpected as finding a fridge in an art museum - a curious pairing indeed!
As researchers, it's our duty to go where the data leads us, whether it's down a delightfully bizarre path or through the tranquil fields of conventionality. And in this case, the data certainly led us down one of the more unexpected and uncharted routes.
But hey, in the world of research, unexpected discoveries are the diamonds hidden in the statistical rough. As we dived into the numbers, crunching data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we were like explorers on the trail of a rare species - except the species in question turned out to be the elusive relationship between soot and kerosene!
It's almost as though the data was whispering secrets to us, beckoning us to uncover a connection that seemed as unlikely as a penguin waddling through the Sahara. But jokes aside, our findings were no laughing matter – we identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a statistically robust relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. It was a statistical "Eureka!" moment, punctuated with a hearty guffaw.
As we delved deeper into the implications of our findings, it was like piecing together a puzzle with pieces that came from two entirely different sets. Imagine finding the missing jigsaw piece for your mundane Monday morning puzzle in the middle of the Amazon rainforest – that's the kind of bewildering scenario we were faced with.
However, our research wasn't just a surprising spectacle; it opened a window into the global interconnectedness of environmental variables, reminding us that even the most peculiar pairings can shed light on pressing environmental issues. After all, in the world of environmental research, where the air might be filled with complex molecules and statistical uncertainties, a little levity now and then can be a breath of fresh air!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627, indicating a strong positive association between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. This finding suggests that as one variable increases, the other tends to follow suit, almost like two dance partners performing a well-choreographed routine. It's as if the soot in Reading is doing the tango with the kerosene in Norway – talk about a cross-continental dance-off!
The r-squared value of 0.7202283 further underscores the robustness of this relationship, explaining approximately 72% of the variance in kerosene consumption based on the levels of air pollution. This level of predictability is akin to knowing that every time you add mentos to a bottle of soda, there's going to be an explosive reaction – except in this case, it's the statistical correlations that are popping!
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that the observed relationship is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, providing strong evidence in support of our hypothesis. It's like winning the statistical jackpot – we hit the research lottery with these findings!
Furthermore, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually depicts the pronounced relationship between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway. The data points form a nearly linear pattern, resembling two friends walking in step, hand in hand, through the convoluted maze of environmental variables. It's a comforting sight, knowing that even in the world of statistical analysis, there's a sense of harmony between seemingly disparate factors.
Ultimately, our study not only illuminates the unexpected association between air pollution in Reading and kerosene consumption in Norway, but also highlights the interconnectedness of environmental phenomena on a global scale. It's a reminder that in the complex web of statistical relationships and scientific inquiry, there's always room for a bit of whimsy and wonder – after all, laughter might just be the best statistical medicine!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unraveled the enigmatic and sooty connection between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. This unexpected relationship left us feeling like we stumbled upon a scientific "dad joke" – surprising and groan-inducing!

The strong correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01 indicates a robust statistical association, as unlikely as pairing a lab coat with a pair of clown shoes. It's clear that these two variables are more intertwined than a knot in a pair of earphones – a twist we didn't see coming!

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.7202283 told a compelling tale of predictability, like knowing that every time the ice cream truck plays its chime, children will come running. And the p-value less than 0.01 was the cherry on top of this statistical banana split – a rare treat indeed!

The visual display in the scatterplot (Fig. 1) beautifully depicted the tight relationship between the two variables, as if they were performing a synchronous ballet across the canvas of environmental data. It's as if the soot and kerosene were sharing a waltz, reminding us that even in the world of statistics, there's room for a little whimsy and wonder.

In essence, our findings emphasize the intricate interconnectedness of environmental phenomena on a global scale, proving that even the most unexpected associations can offer valuable insights. It's a bit like finding a four-leaf clover in a statistics textbook – rare, but undeniably fortunate!

Finally, it's safe to say that no further research is needed in this area. The results of our study have lit up the path like a Bunsen burner in a dimly lit lab, leaving no room for statistical shadows. We've cracked the code on this intriguing connection, and the statistical community can rest assured that the sooty mystery of Reading and kerosene in Norway has been thoroughly unraveled.


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 Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological 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 Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Institute for Transnational Environmental Research


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 Heating Things Up: The Sooty Relationship Between Air Pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and Kerosene Consumption in Norway with an abstract of This study investigates the surprising and sooty relationship between air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania and kerosene consumption in Norway. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, we sought to shed light on this unexpected association. We identified a correlation coefficient of 0.8486627 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors.
It's puzzling how air pollution in the industrial heartland of Pennsylvania could be tied to the consumption of kerosene in the picturesque land of fjords and northern lights. It's like trying to mix oil and water – they just don't seem to go together! Nevertheless, our research uncovered a clear and significant connection that begs further investigation.
On a lighter note, it seems that these two environmental factors have found some common ground, or should we say "common air"? It's as if Reading's soot is hitching a ride on the winds and ending up thousands of miles away in Norway, where it's cozying up with kerosene. We couldn't help but chuckle at this unexpected pairing – it's like seeing a penguin and a polar bear chilling together!
This study offers a peculiar yet meaningful insight into the global interconnectedness of environmental phenomena. As we consider the implications of our findings, we are reminded that even the most unlikely connections can hold important clues for understanding and addressing environmental challenges. After all, in the world of environmental research, it's not always a clear sky – sometimes, there's a little bit of soot and kerosene mixed in!

ChatGPT:

Air pollution, kerosene consumption, environmental correlation, surprising connections, global interconnectedness, environmental research, industrial heartland, Pennsylvania, picturesque Norway, soot and kerosene relationship.

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Reading, PA
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania

Kerosene used in Norway
Detailed data title: Volume of kerosene used consumed in Norway in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Kerosene used in Norway

Correlation r = 0.8486627 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
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 = 0.7202283 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 72% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Kerosene used in Norway) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania) over the 43 years from 1980 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.6E-13. 0.0000000000006603893888495744
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 0.85 in 6.6E-11% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,514,258,128,439 random variables You don't actually need 1 trillion 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 42 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 42 because we have two variables measured over a period of 43 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.

[ 0.74, 0.92 ] 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.
1980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania (Bad air quality days)20.498614.245812.328814.79459.0163910.68497.9452110.41116.66679.315078.2191812.60273.825149.315076.575348.767127.650277.3972611.780811.78084.6448110.958912.32884.931512.732246.301375.111827.326015.73771.917817.123293.01373.551913.287672.191781.643841.912571.369861.369861.643840.2762431.369860.547945
Kerosene used in Norway (Million Barrels/Day)1410783.724044.468495.095895.375344.950824.104113.438363.21373.273223.304113.583563.457534.049183.736993.383563.326032.450822.74522.764383.210962.715852.246582.246581.767121.33061.161641.424661.04110.732240.9424660.695890.5589040.5300550.2602740.2602740.0767120.0327870.0328770.021918




Why this works

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Outlandish outliers: There are "outliers" in this data. In concept, "outlier" just means "way different than the rest of your dataset." When calculating a correlation like this, they are particularly impactful because a single outlier can substantially increase your correlation.

    For the purposes of this project, I counted a point as an outlier if it the residual was two standard deviations from the mean.

    (This bullet point only shows up in the details page on charts that do, in fact, have outliers.)
    They stand out on the scatterplot above: notice the dots that are far away from any other dots. I intentionally mishandeled outliers, which makes the correlation look extra strong.




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([20.4986,14.2458,12.3288,14.7945,9.01639,10.6849,7.94521,10.411,16.6667,9.31507,8.21918,12.6027,3.82514,9.31507,6.57534,8.76712,7.65027,7.39726,11.7808,11.7808,4.64481,10.9589,12.3288,4.93151,2.73224,6.30137,5.11182,7.32601,5.7377,1.91781,7.12329,3.0137,3.55191,3.28767,2.19178,1.64384,1.91257,1.36986,1.36986,1.64384,0.276243,1.36986,0.547945,])
array_2 = np.array([14,10,7,8,3.72404,4.46849,5.09589,5.37534,4.95082,4.10411,3.43836,3.2137,3.27322,3.30411,3.58356,3.45753,4.04918,3.73699,3.38356,3.32603,2.45082,2.7452,2.76438,3.21096,2.71585,2.24658,2.24658,1.76712,1.3306,1.16164,1.42466,1.0411,0.73224,0.942466,0.69589,0.558904,0.530055,0.260274,0.260274,0.076712,0.032787,0.032877,0.021918,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Reading, Pennsylvania"
array_2_name = "Kerosene used in Norway"

# 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:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are top-notch!


Correlation ID: 4199 · Black Variable ID: 21126 · Red Variable ID: 24781
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0