Talk:2014 in science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should The Bill Nye Debate Be Mentioned?[edit]

FWIW - Seems there may be some responsible concern about an entry (4 February 2014) - Should the following be included in the main article - or not?

Copied from the February (2014) section:

  • 4 February – American science educator and engineer Bill Nye (popularly known as "Bill Nye the Science Guy") defends evolution in the classroom in a debate with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.< ref name="NBC-20140204">Boyle, Alan (5 February 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". NBC News. Retrieved 6 February 2014.</ref>< ref name="TG-20140204">Kopplin, Zack (4 February 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 February 2014.</ref>< ref name="Debate-20140204">Nye, Bill; Ham, Ken (4 February 2014). "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham (video - 165:32)". YouTube. Retrieved 5 February 2014.</ref>

Seems some may think it deserves to be mentioned, whereas others may think otherwise - my position is flexible at the moment - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a fairly notable and important debate. I support its inclusion here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths[edit]

Why don't we have a notable deaths section anymore?? Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started one, but don't rely on me - it's not my subject area. Deb (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turing test[edit]

This article has some very good points. Technically, "Researchers are claiming" is right, but what does that mean? There are also people claiming they achieved cold fusion, perpetual motion and whatever. The event gained too much attention to ignore it, but can we make the news weaker? --mfb (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99.999% Certain humans are driving global warming?[edit]

The article in september says that a new study shows that humans are 99.9999% are driving global warming, however what's actually being said in the study itself is that there is a very high probability (99.999%) humans are having a non-zero effect on global warming. http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2ff60m/new_study_concludes_that_there_is_99999_certainty/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.68.33 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that statement is possible, see pyrrus52's reddit post for an explanation. "A new study found that just .001% of simulations without human influence gave as much warming as observed." - okay, but then they still have to consider modelling issues, where I won't trust any "an error in our simulations is less likely than .001%"-statement. We should remove that number completely I think. --mfb (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater[edit]

Should the car that runs on saltwater have any mention on this timeline?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2739768/The-sports-car-runs-SALTWATER-Vehicle-goes-0-60mph-2-8-seconds-just-approved-EU-roads.html - Lightspeed2012 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 400 liter tank to drive 600 km? And what do you do with those 400 liters of salty water afterwards, and where do you get fresh water? Sounds like a weird concept. --mfb (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to green technology, concepts are limitless. Morgan - Lightspeed2012 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every fuel is just as green as its source. Oh, and please sign your comments. --mfb (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created an account, comments are signed! :) - Lightspeed2012 (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nasa just published 'Nature Run' model of carbon dioxide emissions[edit]

NASA publishes 'Nature Run' model of carbon dioxide emissions: [1]

A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2Narrated Video - Jan. 1, 2006 - Dec. 31, 2006

Victor Grigas (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Mission One[edit]

They do not have a drilling concept, they do not have a lander concept and I do not see any detailed plans for sample analysis either. As the main mission is "landing, drilling and analyzing samples", they have nothing. Not even a realistic cost estimate - they want to launch a rocket for some fraction of 600,000 £? I suggest to remove that news item. Everyone can start a kickstarter campaign, no matter how unrealistic it is. Let's visit Jupiter, estimated project costs $100,000! --mfb (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the cost isn't realistic? There's so much innovation happening in space now. Individuals and small groups are gaining the ability to do what only governments and national agencies could do in the past. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many space images?[edit]

Looking at this article, it seems to be dominated by space images. It would be nice to have some variety. Stuff like the Rosetta probe should obviously stay, but I think we should perhaps modify our choice of thumbnails to better reflect the wide range of science subjects. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 2014 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_in_science&oldid=1196675100"