Download png, svg

AI explanation

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image showing a TIME magazine cover with a dynamic juxtaposition of environmental scenes. On the left half, illustrate Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, with a depiction of heavy pollution causing a hazy, smoggy atmosphere. Show trees swaying and leaves scattering in the wind. On the right half, depict Luxembourg with wind turbines spinning faster and more vigorously, symbolizing harnessing the wind power to generate clean energy. The contrast between the two scenes should be visually striking. 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 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and Wind power generated in Luxembourg. 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: Glitch art Data cyber art Art nouveau A TIME magazine cover image Woodblock painting
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image

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 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and Wind power generated in Luxembourg, in the following situation: As the air pollution in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho intensified, it created a localized atmospheric disturbance. This unexpected weather pattern interacted with the Earth's natural systems, ultimately leading to stronger winds in the region. The fortuitous consequence of this environmental upheaval was the inadvertent boost to wind power generation in faraway Luxembourg. It's a classic case of the butterfly effect, albeit with a smoggy, windswept twist!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, the air was thick with pollution, creating a hazy and smoggy atmosphere. As the pollution intensified, the wind began to pick up, causing trees to sway and leaves to scatter. Meanwhile, in Luxembourg, wind turbines spun faster and more vigorously, harnessing the increased wind power to generate clean energy.

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: [ A TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, the air was thick with pollution, creating a hazy and smoggy atmosphere. As the pollution intensified, the wind began to pick up, causing trees to sway and leaves to scatter. Meanwhile, in Luxembourg, wind turbines spun faster and more vigorously, harnessing the increased wind power to generate clean energy. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image showing a TIME magazine cover with a dynamic juxtaposition of environmental scenes. On the left half, illustrate Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, with a depiction of heavy pollution causing a hazy, smoggy atmosphere. Show trees swaying and leaves scattering in the wind. On the right half, depict Luxembourg with wind turbines spinning faster and more vigorously, symbolizing harnessing the wind power to generate clean energy. The contrast between the two scenes should be visually striking.

---

*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.

AI academic paper

Gale-Force Gags: Unraveling the Windy Relationship Between Air Pollution in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and Wind Power Generation in Luxembourg The Journal of Meteorological Mirth Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

Problem variable:	Which variable has a problem? Air pollution in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Wind power generated in Luxembourg Neither / both
Issue:	What is the issue? The data is incorrect The chart isn't displaying properly There is a typo The source link is incorrect A calculation is wrong Something else
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human:

Data details

Why this works

1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 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^Note 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^Note 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. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
5. Outlandish outliers: There are "outliers" in this data.^Note 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

# 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([0,0,0.00549451,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.00925926,0,0.0140845,0.0151057,0,0.019774,0.0140056,])
array_2 = np.array([0.003,0.011,0.018,0.025,0.024,0.024,0.026,0.039,0.052,0.058,0.064,0.061,0.063,0.055086,0.064052,0.077468,0.083028,0.079878,0.10185,0.101486,0.234823,0.254575,0.281283,0.351135,0.334879,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho"
array_2_name = "Wind power generated in Luxembourg"

# 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

• High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
  
  If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
  
  Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
  
• High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
• Alternative high resolution line chart
• Scatterplot
• Portable line chart (png)
• Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
• Line chart for only Air pollution in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
• Line chart for only Wind power generated in Luxembourg
• AI-generated correlation image
• The spurious research paper: Gale-Force Gags: Unraveling the Windy Relationship Between Air Pollution in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and Wind Power Generation in Luxembourg