about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,288 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Fossil fuel use in Serbia and the second variable is Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl.  The chart goes from 2006 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

As Serbia reduced its fossil fuel use, there was a dip in the global demand for energy. This unexpected shift led to a shortage of touchdown celebrations, as the losing team in the Super Bowl found themselves unable to power up their end zone dance routines. With fewer fossil fuels being burned, it seems the losing team just couldn't ignite the same level of scoring prowess, leaving fans to wonder if the game had simply run out of gas.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [High-tech] Generate an image of a dimly lit stadium in Serbia with muted, serene lighting and a cleaner environment due to reduced fossil fuel emissions. Show the losing team on the football field struggling to score points, with a lack of fiery energy contributing to their defeat. Display the contrast between the tranquil, low-emission atmosphere and the team's lackluster performance. 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: Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. 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: Concept art High-tech Oragami Realistic Celtic art
ChatGPT: High-tech

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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl, in the following situation: As Serbia reduced fossil fuel use, the losing Super Bowl team's points decreased. Less fuel led to less fire in their bellies, resulting in a lackluster performance on the field. They couldn't "ignite" their offense and "fueled" the opposing team's victory.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a dimly lit stadium in Serbia, the glow of fewer fossil fuel emissions created a calm, peaceful atmosphere. Meanwhile, on the football field, the losing team struggled to light up the scoreboard with points, as their lack of fire and energy contributed to their defeat.

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: [ High-tech ] and depicting this scene: In a dimly lit stadium in Serbia, the glow of fewer fossil fuel emissions created a calm, peaceful atmosphere. Meanwhile, on the football field, the losing team struggled to light up the scoreboard with points, as their lack of fire and energy contributed to their defeat. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [High-tech] Generate an image of a dimly lit stadium in Serbia with muted, serene lighting and a cleaner environment due to reduced fossil fuel emissions. Show the losing team on the football field struggling to score points, with a lack of fiery energy contributing to their defeat. Display the contrast between the tranquil, low-emission atmosphere and the team's lackluster performance.

*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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia caused Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl to decrease. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia

The Journal of Sports Science and Unusual Metrics

Jan 2024
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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and p < 0.05 for 2006 to 2021.

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]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Gather 'round, fellow researchers and fellow jesters of science! Today, we embark on a whimsical journey into the realms of statistical anomaly and quirky correlations, where fossil fuels meet football in an unlikely dance of data. Our quest? To unravel the enigmatic relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the performance of the losing team in that grand spectacle of American sports, the Super Bowl.

Now, you might be wondering, as many have before, what in the name of statistical significance could possibly connect fossil fuel use in Serbia to the points scored by the unfortunate runners-up of the Super Bowl? While some may dismiss this endeavor as akin to searching for a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium, we assure you, dear reader, that there is more to this peculiar pairing than meets the eye.

In the hallowed halls of academia, we often seek out correlations that are as clear as day, as predictable as gravity, and as consistent as the speed of light. But every now and then, we stumble upon relationships that defy conventional wisdom, that beckon us to venture beyond the beaten path of research and into the wilderness of the unexpected. And so, armed with a touch of curiosity and a generous sprinkle of statistical wizardry, we set out to unravel this riddle that intertwines fossil fuels and football in a most unexpected waltz of numbers.

As we unveil the findings of our revelatory journey, we invite you to join us in a lighthearted exploration of the curious, the quirky, and the quizzical. Prepare to be amused, bemused, and possibly even mildly confused, as we uncover the improbable parallels between the burning of fossil fuels and the dwindling scoreboards of Super Bowl losers. So, put on your thinking caps, fasten your seatbelts, and get ready for a scientific adventure that will have you cheering, pondering, and scratching your head in equal measure. The data awaits, and the game is afoot!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers and fellow jesters of science! Today, we embark on a whimsical journey into the realms of statistical anomaly and quirky correlations, where fossil fuels meet football in an unlikely dance of data. Our quest? To unravel the enigmatic relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the performance of the losing team in that grand spectacle of American sports, the Super Bowl.
Now, you might be wondering, as many have before, what in the name of statistical significance could possibly connect fossil fuel use in Serbia to the points scored by the unfortunate runners-up of the Super Bowl? While some may dismiss this endeavor as akin to searching for a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium, we assure you, dear reader, that there is more to this peculiar pairing than meets the eye.
In the hallowed halls of academia, we often seek out correlations that are as clear as day, as predictable as gravity, and as consistent as the speed of light. But every now and then, we stumble upon relationships that defy conventional wisdom, that beckon us to venture beyond the beaten path of research and into the wilderness of the unexpected. And so, armed with a touch of curiosity and a generous sprinkle of statistical wizardry, we set out to unravel this riddle that intertwines fossil fuels and football in a most unexpected waltz of numbers.
As we unveil the findings of our revelatory journey, we invite you to join us in a lighthearted exploration of the curious, the quirky, and the quizzical. Prepare to be amused, bemused, and possibly even mildly confused, as we uncover the improbable parallels between the burning of fossil fuels and the dwindling scoreboards of Super Bowl losers. So, put on your thinking caps, fasten your seatbelts, and get ready for a scientific adventure that will have you cheering, pondering, and scratching your head in equal measure. The data awaits, and the game is afoot!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith (2010) examined the geopolitical and economic implications of fossil fuel consumption in Serbia, delving into the intricate web of international energy dynamics and the impact on regional stability. Meanwhile, Doe (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of Super Bowl statistics, scrutinizing the nuanced factors influencing the performance of losing teams, from player injuries to halftime show extravaganzas. Jones (2018) ventured into the realm of environmental sustainability and sports, exploring the intersection of eco-friendly initiatives and athletic events, highlighting the potential for greener approaches in the world of competitive sports.

In "Fossil Fuel Frenzy" (Brown, 2016), the author explores the historical and contemporary significance of fossil fuels, from their industrial revolution roots to their modern-day controversies. "Touchdowns and Turnovers" (Grey, 2014) takes a playful yet analytical approach to dissecting the strategy and psychology of Super Bowl games, offering insights into the intricate dance of offense and defense on the grand stage of American football. Branching into the realm of fiction, "Oil and Pigskins" (Wells, 2008) weaves a whimsical tale of an alternate universe where fossil fuel use directly influences the outcomes of major sporting events, blurring the lines between reality and absurdity. "The Gridiron Gaia" (Stone, 2012) presents a fictional narrative set in a world where the environmental impact of energy consumption shapes the destiny of sports teams, introducing an element of ecological whimsy to the realm of athletic competitions.

On a tangentially related note, the researchers have also indulged in movie marathons that explore the worlds of fossil fuel industries and athletic endeavors. The "Gridiron Oil Rig" film series immerses viewers in the riveting drama of oil barons and football icons, weaving a tale of unexpected camaraderie and high-stakes competition drenched in black gold. In "Pumped Up Pigskin" (Yearwood, 2016), the protagonist encounters a quirky phenomenon where the performance of Super Bowl losing teams mirrors the tumultuous fluctuations of fossil fuel markets, bringing an unexpected twist to the traditional sports narrative.

With this melange of scholarly inquiries, literary escapades, and cinematic tangents, we set the stage for a delightfully offbeat exploration of the relationship between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the scoring prowess (or lack thereof) of Super Bowl losing teams. So, dear readers, buckle up as we immerse ourselves in a world where statistical oddities and sporting spectacle collide in a tumultuous tango of unconventional inquiry.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia . You used data from 2006 to 2021

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]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers and fellow jesters of science! Today, we embark on a whimsical journey into the realms of statistical anomaly and quirky correlations, where fossil fuels meet football in an unlikely dance of data. Our quest? To unravel the enigmatic relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the performance of the losing team in that grand spectacle of American sports, the Super Bowl.
Now, you might be wondering, as many have before, what in the name of statistical significance could possibly connect fossil fuel use in Serbia to the points scored by the unfortunate runners-up of the Super Bowl? While some may dismiss this endeavor as akin to searching for a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium, we assure you, dear reader, that there is more to this peculiar pairing than meets the eye.
In the hallowed halls of academia, we often seek out correlations that are as clear as day, as predictable as gravity, and as consistent as the speed of light. But every now and then, we stumble upon relationships that defy conventional wisdom, that beckon us to venture beyond the beaten path of research and into the wilderness of the unexpected. And so, armed with a touch of curiosity and a generous sprinkle of statistical wizardry, we set out to unravel this riddle that intertwines fossil fuels and football in a most unexpected waltz of numbers.
As we unveil the findings of our revelatory journey, we invite you to join us in a lighthearted exploration of the curious, the quirky, and the quizzical. Prepare to be amused, bemused, and possibly even mildly confused, as we uncover the improbable parallels between the burning of fossil fuels and the dwindling scoreboards of Super Bowl losers. So, put on your thinking caps, fasten your seatbelts, and get ready for a scientific adventure that will have you cheering, pondering, and scratching your head in equal measure. The data awaits, and the game is afoot!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To begin our merry quest into the unexpected realms of sports and fossil-fueled follies, we gathered data from a variety of sources, handpicking the ripest statistics from the digital vineyards of the Energy Information Administration and that cornucopia of collective knowledge, Wikipedia. Now, some might say that trusting Wikipedia for scientific research is like relying on a sleeping dragon for a wake-up call, but fear not, for we applied a discerning eye and a healthy dose of skepticism to sift through the electronic haystack of information.

Our study focused on the period from 2006 to 2021, a range that enveloped us in the ebb and flow of fossil fuel use in Serbia and the rollercoaster of Super Bowl defeats. We attained data on the consumption of various types of fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas, and oil, in Serbia, with a precise eye for detail matching our scrutiny of a referee's call in the final moments of a championship game.

As for the performance of the losing teams in the Super Bowl, we meticulously recorded the points scored by the unfortunate runners-up, scrutinizing each touchdown and field goal as if our statistical lives depended on it. To ensure the integrity of our findings, we cross-referenced our data across multiple reputable sources, because relying on a single data point is as risky as attempting a touchdown pass in the middle of a blizzard.

Now here comes the real kicker! To analyze the relationship between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl, we employed the wily technique of correlation analysis, beckoning the majestic Pearson correlation coefficient to waltz into our statistical ballroom. This method allowed us to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between our two curious variables, providing us with a measure of their interdependence that was more revealing than a quarterback's game plan.

But wait, there's more! We didn't stop at a mere correlation coefficient – oh no, we went all out and subjected our findings to the rigorous scrutiny of hypothesis testing. With the help of a zippy little tool called a t-test, we deftly checked the statistical significance of our results, ensuring that our quirky correlation wasn't just a fluke or a fumble in the data field.

In the end, armed with a quiver of statistical methods and a touch of whimsy, we emerged from the labyrinth of data with a newfound appreciation for the unexpected connections that lie hidden in the nooks and crannies of research. Our methodology may have been as lively and unconventional as a halftime show, but rest assured, dear reader, our findings are as robust and intriguing as a game-winning touchdown in the dying seconds of the fourth quarter.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia .

For the time period 2006 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.5015869, r-squared of 0.2515894, and p < 0.05.

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]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers and fellow jesters of science! Today, we embark on a whimsical journey into the realms of statistical anomaly and quirky correlations, where fossil fuels meet football in an unlikely dance of data. Our quest? To unravel the enigmatic relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the performance of the losing team in that grand spectacle of American sports, the Super Bowl.
Now, you might be wondering, as many have before, what in the name of statistical significance could possibly connect fossil fuel use in Serbia to the points scored by the unfortunate runners-up of the Super Bowl? While some may dismiss this endeavor as akin to searching for a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium, we assure you, dear reader, that there is more to this peculiar pairing than meets the eye.
In the hallowed halls of academia, we often seek out correlations that are as clear as day, as predictable as gravity, and as consistent as the speed of light. But every now and then, we stumble upon relationships that defy conventional wisdom, that beckon us to venture beyond the beaten path of research and into the wilderness of the unexpected. And so, armed with a touch of curiosity and a generous sprinkle of statistical wizardry, we set out to unravel this riddle that intertwines fossil fuels and football in a most unexpected waltz of numbers.
As we unveil the findings of our revelatory journey, we invite you to join us in a lighthearted exploration of the curious, the quirky, and the quizzical. Prepare to be amused, bemused, and possibly even mildly confused, as we uncover the improbable parallels between the burning of fossil fuels and the dwindling scoreboards of Super Bowl losers. So, put on your thinking caps, fasten your seatbelts, and get ready for a scientific adventure that will have you cheering, pondering, and scratching your head in equal measure. The data awaits, and the game is afoot!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

In a delightful twist of fate, our analysis uncovered a rather unexpected relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Over the period from 2006 to 2021, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.5015869, indicating a moderate positive correlation between these two seemingly disparate variables. It appears that as fossil fuel use in Serbia increased, the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl also tended to rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of statistical disbelief.

Furthermore, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.2515894, suggesting that approximately 25.16% of the variability in the points scored by the losing team can be explained by the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia. This finding, while non-negligible, leaves plenty of room for further investigation into the mysterious forces at play between fossil fuel consumption and Super Bowl performance.

Even more captivating is the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05, which has researchers and football fans alike scratching their heads in bemused fascination. This suggests that the correlation we observed is unlikely to be a mere fluke, adding a touch of scientific intrigue to this peculiar pairing of fossil fuels and football.

To bring our revelations to life, we present Fig. 1, a whimsical scatterplot that visually encapsulates the strong correlation we uncovered. Prepare to be entertained by the dance of data points as they waltz across the graph, mirroring the harmonious tango between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the points scored by the unfortunate losers of the Super Bowl.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith (2010) examined the geopolitical and economic implications of fossil fuel consumption in Serbia, delving into the intricate web of international energy dynamics and the impact on regional stability. Meanwhile, Doe (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of Super Bowl statistics, scrutinizing the nuanced factors influencing the performance of losing teams, from player injuries to halftime show extravaganzas. Jones (2018) ventured into the realm of environmental sustainability and sports, exploring the intersection of eco-friendly initiatives and athletic events, highlighting the potential for greener approaches in the world of competitive sports.
In "Fossil Fuel Frenzy" (Brown, 2016), the author explores the historical and contemporary significance of fossil fuels, from their industrial revolution roots to their modern-day controversies. "Touchdowns and Turnovers" (Grey, 2014) takes a playful yet analytical approach to dissecting the strategy and psychology of Super Bowl games, offering insights into the intricate dance of offense and defense on the grand stage of American football. Branching into the realm of fiction, "Oil and Pigskins" (Wells, 2008) weaves a whimsical tale of an alternate universe where fossil fuel use directly influences the outcomes of major sporting events, blurring the lines between reality and absurdity. "The Gridiron Gaia" (Stone, 2012) presents a fictional narrative set in a world where the environmental impact of energy consumption shapes the destiny of sports teams, introducing an element of ecological whimsy to the realm of athletic competitions.
On a tangentially related note, the researchers have also indulged in movie marathons that explore the worlds of fossil fuel industries and athletic endeavors. The "Gridiron Oil Rig" film series immerses viewers in the riveting drama of oil barons and football icons, weaving a tale of unexpected camaraderie and high-stakes competition drenched in black gold. In "Pumped Up Pigskin" (Yearwood, 2016), the protagonist encounters a quirky phenomenon where the performance of Super Bowl losing teams mirrors the tumultuous fluctuations of fossil fuel markets, bringing an unexpected twist to the traditional sports narrative.
With this melange of scholarly inquiries, literary escapades, and cinematic tangents, we set the stage for a delightfully offbeat exploration of the relationship between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the scoring prowess (or lack thereof) of Super Bowl losing teams. So, dear readers, buckle up as we immerse ourselves in a world where statistical oddities and sporting spectacle collide in a tumultuous tango of unconventional inquiry.

[[RESULTS]]
In a delightful twist of fate, our analysis uncovered a rather unexpected relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Over the period from 2006 to 2021, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.5015869, indicating a moderate positive correlation between these two seemingly disparate variables. It appears that as fossil fuel use in Serbia increased, the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl also tended to rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of statistical disbelief.
Furthermore, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.2515894, suggesting that approximately 25.16% of the variability in the points scored by the losing team can be explained by the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia. This finding, while non-negligible, leaves plenty of room for further investigation into the mysterious forces at play between fossil fuel consumption and Super Bowl performance.
Even more captivating is the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05, which has researchers and football fans alike scratching their heads in bemused fascination. This suggests that the correlation we observed is unlikely to be a mere fluke, adding a touch of scientific intrigue to this peculiar pairing of fossil fuels and football.
To bring our revelations to life, we present Fig. 1, a whimsical scatterplot that visually encapsulates the strong correlation we uncovered. Prepare to be entertained by the dance of data points as they waltz across the graph, mirroring the harmonious tango between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the points scored by the unfortunate losers of the Super Bowl.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

To many, our findings might seem more preposterous than a football team trying to score goals, but the statistical correlation between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl cannot be dismissed lightly. This unexpected relationship has caught the attention of both the scientific and sports communities, much like a fumble on the field during a crucial play.

Our results not only supported the quirky storyline in "Pumped Up Pigskin" (Yearwood, 2016), where the performance of Super Bowl losing teams mirrors the tumultuous fluctuations of fossil fuel markets, but also echoed the whimsical narratives in "The Gridiron Gaia" (Stone, 2012) and "Oil and Pigskins" (Wells, 2008), where the environmental impact of energy consumption shapes the destiny of sports teams. Who would have guessed that these fanciful musings would find a semblance of truth in our empirical analysis? As the saying goes, truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

While our correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 may not be as eye-popping as a halftime show extravaganza, it is certainly a sight to behold in the realm of statistical oddities. This moderate positive correlation suggests that as the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia increases, the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl tend to rise as well. Perhaps there is some yet-to-be-identified energy wave that resonates across continents, influencing both the dynamics of global fuel consumption and the performance of American football teams.

Furthermore, our r-squared value of 0.2515894, while not reaching touchdown territory in terms of explanation power, still holds its own as a solid contribution to the wacky world of statistical associations. It seems that approximately 25.16% of the variability in the points scored by the losing team can be attributed to the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia. This fraction of predictability may not be a game-changer, but it certainly adds an element of predictability to a seemingly unpredictable conundrum.

And let's not forget the star player of our results – the p-value. With a value of less than 0.05, our correlation is more than just a Hail Mary pass; it's a statistically significant connection that commands attention. It's as if the scientific gods of sports and energy have conspired to create this peculiar pairing, leaving us researchers and football fans alike scratching our heads in bemused fascination.

In the grand scheme of scientific inquiries, our study provides a comical reminder that even the most unlikely pairs of variables can dance an intricate statistical tango, revealing surprising insights along the way. As we dust off our lab coats and adjust our helmets, we eagerly anticipate the next chapters in this whimsical saga of fossil fuel use and the triumphs and tribulations of Super Bowl competitors. There's plenty more data to dive into, and who knows what statistical touchdowns and punts await us in the playful arena of offbeat research.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Fossil fuel use in Serbia and Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers and fellow jesters of science! Today, we embark on a whimsical journey into the realms of statistical anomaly and quirky correlations, where fossil fuels meet football in an unlikely dance of data. Our quest? To unravel the enigmatic relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the performance of the losing team in that grand spectacle of American sports, the Super Bowl.
Now, you might be wondering, as many have before, what in the name of statistical significance could possibly connect fossil fuel use in Serbia to the points scored by the unfortunate runners-up of the Super Bowl? While some may dismiss this endeavor as akin to searching for a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium, we assure you, dear reader, that there is more to this peculiar pairing than meets the eye.
In the hallowed halls of academia, we often seek out correlations that are as clear as day, as predictable as gravity, and as consistent as the speed of light. But every now and then, we stumble upon relationships that defy conventional wisdom, that beckon us to venture beyond the beaten path of research and into the wilderness of the unexpected. And so, armed with a touch of curiosity and a generous sprinkle of statistical wizardry, we set out to unravel this riddle that intertwines fossil fuels and football in a most unexpected waltz of numbers.
As we unveil the findings of our revelatory journey, we invite you to join us in a lighthearted exploration of the curious, the quirky, and the quizzical. Prepare to be amused, bemused, and possibly even mildly confused, as we uncover the improbable parallels between the burning of fossil fuels and the dwindling scoreboards of Super Bowl losers. So, put on your thinking caps, fasten your seatbelts, and get ready for a scientific adventure that will have you cheering, pondering, and scratching your head in equal measure. The data awaits, and the game is afoot!

[[RESULTS]]
In a delightful twist of fate, our analysis uncovered a rather unexpected relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. Over the period from 2006 to 2021, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.5015869, indicating a moderate positive correlation between these two seemingly disparate variables. It appears that as fossil fuel use in Serbia increased, the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl also tended to rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of statistical disbelief.
Furthermore, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.2515894, suggesting that approximately 25.16% of the variability in the points scored by the losing team can be explained by the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia. This finding, while non-negligible, leaves plenty of room for further investigation into the mysterious forces at play between fossil fuel consumption and Super Bowl performance.
Even more captivating is the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05, which has researchers and football fans alike scratching their heads in bemused fascination. This suggests that the correlation we observed is unlikely to be a mere fluke, adding a touch of scientific intrigue to this peculiar pairing of fossil fuels and football.
To bring our revelations to life, we present Fig. 1, a whimsical scatterplot that visually encapsulates the strong correlation we uncovered. Prepare to be entertained by the dance of data points as they waltz across the graph, mirroring the harmonious tango between fossil fuel use in Serbia and the points scored by the unfortunate losers of the Super Bowl.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we conclude this comical adventure through the parallel universes of fossil fuels and football fumbles, we are left with a lingering chuckle and a raised eyebrow at the delightfully perplexing connection we have unearthed. Who would have thought that the sizzling consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia could light a fire under the performance of the losing team in the Super Bowl? It seems that as the fossil fuel consumption surged, so did the scores of the unfortunate runners-up, boggling the minds of statisticians and armchair quarterbacks alike.

While we have plunged headfirst into the depths of this statistical oddity and emerged with a correlation coefficient and p-value that would make even the most serious researcher crack a smile, we dare not tread further into the realms of causation. As exciting as it may be to imagine Serbian coal stoking the fires of American football, we must heed the call of scientific caution and resist the temptation to draw unwarranted conclusions from these curious correlations.

In the immortal words of Newton, "What goes up must come down," or in this case, what goes up in Serbian fossil fuel consumption must be taken with a grain of statistical salt. So, with a lighthearted twirl and a nod to the whimsy of science, we bid adieu to this unlikely pairing of energy and athletics. Let us leave this peculiar enigma to rest, for no more research is needed in this merry intersection of fossil fuel use and Super Bowl sorrows.


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 Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Sports Science and Unusual Metrics


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 Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Pinnacle Institute for Unconventional 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 Fueling Defeat: A Fossil-Fueled Analysis of Super Bowl Losers' Performance in Relation to Fossil Fuel Use in Serbia with an abstract of In our research, we dived into the world of unusual correlations by examining the relationship between the consumption of fossil fuels in Serbia and the points scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl. While some may argue that the connection between these two variables is as obscure as a fossil in a football field, our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.5015869 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2006 to 2021. Could it be that the more fossil fuels are used in Serbia, the lower the scoring by the losing team in the Super Bowl? Our work unravels this quirky association, shedding light on the potential impact of fossil fuel use on sports outcomes, and paves the way for further investigations into the peculiar links between energy consumption and athletic performances.

ChatGPT:

fossil fuel consumption, Serbia, Super Bowl losers' performance, correlation, sports outcomes, energy consumption, Serbia fossil fuel use, Super Bowl scoring, unusual correlations, athletic performances

*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

Fossil fuel use in Serbia
Detailed data title: Total fossil fuel use in Serbia in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Fossil fuel use in Serbia

Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl

Correlation r = 0.5015869 (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 = 0.2515894 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 25.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Serbia) over the 16 years from 2006 through 2021.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.048. 0.0477572600054611340000000000
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 0.5 in 4.8% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 21 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 15 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 15 because we have two variables measured over a period of 16 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.

[ 0.01, 0.8 ] 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.
2006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Fossil fuel use in Serbia (Billion kWh)23.98524.922225.63125.547324.000127.595625.266327.262821.067324.910225.130224.499123.22123.424124.438622.575
Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl (Points scored)10171423172517318241028333209




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. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




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([23.985,24.9222,25.631,25.5473,24.0001,27.5956,25.2663,27.2628,21.0673,24.9102,25.1302,24.4991,23.221,23.4241,24.4386,22.575,])
array_2 = np.array([10,17,14,23,17,25,17,31,8,24,10,28,33,3,20,9,])
array_1_name = "Fossil fuel use in Serbia"
array_2_name = "Points Scored by the losing team in the Super Bowl"

# 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 dedication to rating warms my heart!


Correlation ID: 3288 · Black Variable ID: 23954 · Red Variable ID: 540
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0