New Zealand May Be the Tip of a Submerged Continent (theoutline.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report on The Outline: A group of geologists believe it is time to name a new continent. A paper published in the March/April edition of GSA Today, the journal for the Geological Society of America, lays out the case for Zealandia as the seventh and youngest geological continent. In the past, New Zealand was thought to be part of a collection of "islands, fragments, and slices," the authors wrote, but it's now understood to be part of a solid landmass. New Zealand is essentially the highest mountains of a 1.9 million square mile landmass that is 94 percent underwater, according to the paper. The authors believe it is both large and isolated enough to qualify as a continent. They note that it is elevated relative to the oceanic crust, as befits a continent, and its distinctiveness and thickness are also on par with continents one through six. What does it matter if Zealandia is officially a continent? Reclassifying the area would encourage geologists to include it in studies of comparative continental rifting and continent-ocean boundaries.

Comments

Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

A Continent is a landmass, not a slightly shallower section of ocean.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[jandersen]

A Continent is a landmass, not a slightly shallower section of ocean.

There is no clear, universally agreed definition of what a continent is. Australia was an island not long ago - and Europe is a different continent from Asia, which is absurd, in terms of geography. And there is an argument in favour of calling New Zealand a continent: it is part of a piece of continental crust, which sits on its own, tectonic plate. I would say it is as good a definition as any. Whichever way we look at it, it is hard to argue that there are more than 6 continents, unless we count New Zealand.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[phayes]

That's OK as far as it goes but there is already a word that fits but that wasn't used: subcontinent

The NZ plaque is also smaller than the Indian subcontinental plaque making it clear that "Newzealandia is a continent" is either journalistic inflation or Kiwi puffery.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[DrXym]

Just like planets, species etc. It comes from a desire to categorize things even though on occasions things cannot be categorized or the criteria for doing it doesn't work.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as if you go to the grocery shop and buy "1 kg" (vulgar language) of potatoes, when what you're buying is "1 kp" of potatoes.

That is incorrect. You are buying 1kg (mass, amount of substance) of potatoes, not 1kp (amount of force exerted by Earth's gravity on 1kg of substance). The balance in the grocery shop might use measurement of 1kp force to verify that you are taking 1kg of potatoes, but that is the end of 1kp use. You leave the shop with 1kg of potatoes.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Your.Master]

Can you repeat this in the vulgar/common language of the English speakers? I don't understand what you're saying here. What in the hell is 1 kp of potatoes? And why do you get to declare physical geology the arbiter of continents, not geology as a whole? And why is Eurafrasia necessarily a "Wrong Definition"?

This is not like how we differentiate between arms and legs. This is more like how we decide between saying you have five fingers on a hand of which one is a thumb, vs. saying you have four fingers and one thumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no clear, universally agreed definition of what a continent is.

There is only one solution: we need an international committee to define what a continent is, and then decide that NZ is a dwarf continent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as if you go to the grocery shop and buy "1 kg" (vulgar language) of potatoes, when what you're buying is "1 kp" of potatoes.

False. Saying that the "weight of the potatoes" is 1 kg would be wrong indeed, but:

1. Who says we have to buy potatoes by weight in stead of by mass?

2. Even if you could enforce the above, the kilopond is an obsolete unit, it would be 9.8 Newton potatoes in SI units.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sine when was Australia only an Island? It was called a continent in the 18th century once it was clear it was a large single land mass, with some calling it the largest island as well. By the late 18th century it was defined as a continent once a complete circumnaviation was done that proved exactly what the single land mass was. So basically for the entire length of white settlement, it has been a continent.

Up until the early 18th century due to the boundaries being unclear, it was thought to be part of Asia, so again, thought to be at least part of a larger continent.

There basically has been no point in it's known European history since 1606 that it has been only an island.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Half-pint HAL]

A Continent is a landmass, not a slightly shallower section of ocean.

Except that we've redefined the term "continent" many times already. In common parlance, "continent" in French means mainland, and in the UK, that definition survives in the tendency to refer to "mainland Europe" as "the continent". The original Latin root means continuing/continuous, and as there is no surface discontinuity between Europe, Asia and Africa, the notion of "continent" as we understand it was completely arbitrary, right up until the discovery of plate tectonics. Even then, people have been reluctant to follow plate tectonics to its logical conclusion -- note how the Indian plate is referred to as a "subcontinent" even though it's a distinct plate from Asia. It's also worth noting that various languages have different numbers of continents, each making the distinction on different geographical, geological, ethnic or political bases.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, then India should be a separate continent?

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[DJ Rubbie]

At least we can all agree on how it is part of an enormous land mass called Earth.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[zifn4b]

There is no clear, universally agreed definition of what a continent is.

I go with the technical definition: big ass island

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[zifn4b]

There is only one solution: we need an international committee to define what a continent is, and then decide that NZ is a dwarf continent.

If you figure that out could you get one for international labor standards too? That one's slightly more important...

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[slashrio]

They didn't mean the ocean, they meant the landmass below the water.
I guess every area under water might then classify as a 'continent'?

Re: Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh! In your face! Great retort to an "look I'm so smart" asshole!

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

1kg vs 1kp of potatoes, in common/vulgar English, what he's ranting about is what kilograms is a measure of mass, and kiloponds is a measure of force.

When the store puts the potatoes on a scale, and charges you for one kilogram of potatoes they are actually deciding to bill you by a measure of kiloponds, the gravitational force of the potatoes pushing "down" on the scale.

If you are trying to be excessively technical about something, you are being sold "enough potatoes to exert one kilopond of force on the scale, which unless you are somewhere experiencing a gravitational anomaly will nearly always happen to be the same amount of potatoes that would constitute one kilogram."

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[angel'o'sphere]

I learned in school, 40 years ago, a continent is a big plate floating on the earth magma. That is actually a pretty strict definition. Plates are called "continental shelf", mere islands like Hawaii or Japan are not on a continental shelf.

No idea why the english/american wikipedia article disagrees, I guess because it is written by hobbyists?

Now it seems some scientists argue that NZ has its own shelf ... if that it is the case: it is a continent.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1. Europe. 2. Asia. 3 Africa. 4 Australia. 5 North America 6. South America 7 Antarctica.

8 New Zealand?

I count 8 not 7 and certainly not 6.

Re: Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're buying a kilogram of potatoes. You're buying that much mass. You see, being pedantic does not make you look smart, we only laugh at you just like we laugh at all autistic nerds. You have shit smeared all over your face now, pedantic little nerd.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[dargaud]

There is no clear, universally agreed definition of what a continent is.

I've been to all 7 continents. And even if they add an 8th one in NZ, I don't care as I've been there too !

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[MightyMartian]

Categorization is always to some extent artificial. Are viruses alive? What constitutes a planet? What is a species? All you can do in some cases is accept that there is an inevitable fuzziness, and that a concept can at best explain the majority of cases with the outliers either being categorized in or out of the set depending upon how many attributes are shared.

The definition of a continent has become considerably more complex as we learn more about how the geology of Earth works, and so far as I understand it these days a continent is usually defined as a contiguous section of crust, made up of multiple plates, but that has fairly deep roots into the mantle. The oceans themselves play a somewhat muddier role in all of this, but in general continents are not defined anymore by how much of their surface sits above sea level. Considering that sea level fluctuates a great deal in geological time, you can have situations like the Bering land bridge where two separate continents are in fact joined by a land mass. Similar features can be found with the Ismuths of Panama and Suez. Another good example of a continent that is defined largely by crust and sub-crustal features is Antarctica, which would actually be more of an archipelago if the ice cap were to melt.

The problem here is force fitting a rather 19th century *geography* definition of continent with a modern 21st century *geology* definition of continent.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, nerd.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[cyberchondriac]

There is no shortage of dweebs lately that think "America" is one continent and thereby want to divorce the term from meaning a USA citizen.

Re: Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Crust, whether continental or oceanic, lies on top of mantle rock, which is solid (though plastic). Magma is liquid rock. Mantle can lÃquify into magma when temperature/pressure is correct (as with under Hawaii). But some magma is also the result of melting crust - such as magma that powers volcanos on the west coast of the US, where one plate of oceanic crust is being pushed deep down under another plate.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[The Grim Reefer]

Just like planets, species etc.

Ceres and Pluto suggested we call it a dwarf continent.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[skids]

The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.

(joke) Obviously this is Russian propaganda (/joke)

By the way, there are five senses:

1) Sight 2) Hearing 3) Smell 4) Taste 5) Touch 6) Balance 7) Proprioception .... and so on.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[sysrammer]

What are you going on about? Some snark just so you can toss "merkin" in? Oh, we're so insulted, how can we take the shame?

Your primary statement of fact was unnecessary. No-one was making any argument against it. Re-stating it did not provide more context.

The GP was an amusing post, and, frankly, the first joke that came to my mind.

Why *your* butthurt? Dwarf mind?

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is an argument in favour of calling New Zealand a continent: it is part of a piece of continental crust, which sits on its own, tectonic plate.

Which could give N Zealand a basis for a territorial claim over the entire submerged landmass.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[franzrogar]

This answer goes for you and for those you downvoted my previous message.

Can you repeat this in the vulgar/common language of the English speakers?

Vulgar/common language is the language people speaks freely in the streets and might not be proper or exact in its meaning.

So, stop thinking everyone wants to insult/attack you ('cause most people doesn't care to do so).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There, you can read: "It is the smallest of the seven traditional continents in the English conception." Meaning, only you, English speakers, have an "Australian Continent", not the Science Community.

I don't understand what you're saying here. What in the hell is 1 kp of potatoes?

If you don't know the basics of science, then, I don't see why you irritates from what I've written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And why do you get to declare physical geology the arbiter of continents, not geology as a whole? And why is Eurafrasia necessarily a "Wrong Definition"?

First, my bad, I meant "phisical geography" (not geology).
Second, I didn't wrote Eurafrasia (that's your making), I wrote Europe-Asia-Africa, which is different. I lacked here more explaining. Continent division, nowadays, have almost nothing to do with continental plaques.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

A Continent is a landmass, not a slightly shallower section of ocean.

Except that we've redefined the term "continent" many times already. In common parlance, "continent" in French means mainland, and in the UK, that definition survives in the tendency to refer to "mainland Europe" as "the continent". The original Latin root means continuing/continuous, and as there is no surface discontinuity between Europe, Asia and Africa, the notion of "continent" as we understand it was completely arbitrary, right up until the discovery of plate tectonics. Even then, people have been reluctant to follow plate tectonics to its logical conclusion -- note how the Indian plate is referred to as a "subcontinent" even though it's a distinct plate from Asia. It's also worth noting that various languages have different numbers of continents, each making the distinction on different geographical, geological, ethnic or political bases.

Nothing of it does matter. As far as human society is concerned, continents are what stands above water. It is a cultural construct. Plate tectonics can be ignored in this case, just like the center of the Earth itself is ignored.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[dj245]

A Continent is a landmass, not a slightly shallower section of ocean.

There is no clear, universally agreed definition of what a continent is. Australia was an island not long ago - and Europe is a different continent from Asia, which is absurd, in terms of geography.

And where is the line Europe/Asia? Most maps include all of Russia as part of Asia. Some maps draw a line through Russia. My kids even have a geography book that shows Russia as being wholly in Europe.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you're looking for Mars. That's the planet where those can exist.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Rakarra]

Another thing is that, "in the vulgar/common language of English speakers", you call it "Australian Continent", which is WRONG (main island is in one continental platform and some of its islands are in others).

Australia is both a continent and a country, and each of those contexts refers to slightly different sets of land-masses. A country can be spread out over multiple continents, like Denmark (+Greenland) and the U.K. (Great Britiain + various territories such as the B.V.I.), and a continent can be spread over multiple tectonic plates.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[nosfucious]

I think they prefer to be called Hobbits. Hobbit Continent.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that we've redefined the term "continent" many times already. In common parlance, "continent" in French means mainland,

I'm sorry, but, at the root, 'continent' means "continuous land".

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[DutchUncle]

I learned in school, 40 years ago, a continent is a big plate floating on the earth magma.

What's funny about this is that just a decade earlier, when I was in school, continental drift was still a crazy crackpot theory.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Asia/Europe thing used to annoy me at school (or, more accurately, made me annoy my teachers). Continents are meant to be separated by oceans, not mountains, which are about as different from oceans (anti-oceans?) as it's possible to get.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[bytesex]

Continents, races, oceans, senses; all 19th century, easy-to-memorize lists for primary schoolchildren but completely unscientific.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Hognoxious]

You're lucky. They revoked phlogiston theory two weeks before my chemistry finals.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

In common parlance, "continent" in French means mainland

My arse it does.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[DutchUncle]

Not joking: My father was in high school in the 1940s - NYC Bronx High School of Science. One year he came back after summer break, and the chemistry teacher had everyone open the textbook to the page saying the atom was indestructible, and rip it out. The counter-example had blown up Hiroshima a month earlier.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a Little Person and wants the negative connotations around Dwarf Planets to stop.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

so does that make dwarf tossing legal in new zealand?

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand doesn't exist, it's an urban legend and some people find amusing to continue the hoax. Obviously there is nothing on the other flat side of this flat Earth.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Half-pint HAL]

In common parlance, "continent" in French means mainland

My arse it does.

OK, so why do people in Corsica always talk about going to "le continent" and people visiting Corsica always talk about being from "le continent"? "My arse it does." contains no information to refute my claims.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[cyberchondriac]

That didn't take long, a butthurt dweeb down-modded this already. Sorry cupcake, US citizens have been referred to as "Americans" by the rest of the civilized world for well over a century. "America" is not scientifically recognized as a single continent.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[lsatenstein]

A Continent is a landmass, not a slightly shallower section of ocean.

There is no clear, universally agreed definition of what a continent is. Australia was an island not long ago - and Europe is a different continent from Asia, which is absurd, in terms of geography. And there is an argument in favour of calling New Zealand a continent: it is part of a piece of continental crust, which sits on its own, tectonic plate. I would say it is as good a definition as any. Whichever way we look at it, it is hard to argue that there are more than 6 continents, unless we count New Zealand.

Is there some off-shore mineral mining going on?

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[syntotic]

It affects. We should be looking for the Cradle of Man elsewhere, not in Africa. It does look like a first, useful step. And it may feed all Mu continent proposes also. So suddenly it is not a matter of exploring yet another Sea Bottom, but the underwater surface of a new Continent. It sounds interesting.

Re:Redefining words so we can make a "discovery"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still a good example of what happens when the post modern generation starts trying to be relevant in science.

if birds had radios in their butts..

[Anonymous Coward]

there'd be music in the air at all times? cease fire stand down..

New Sea-Land

[crow5599]

It just occurred to me how appropriate New Zealand's name might be in this context: it's a New Sea-Land.

Re:New Sea-Land

[aliquis]

Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There's also this one but it's not the right one for the story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:New Sea-Land

[sg_oneill]

Here in Australia we just call it "The eastern most state".

But its cool, as long as they don't declare independence its all fine. One country, many systems.

(They call us "West island")

Re:New Sea-Land

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard most kiwis just call you wankers.

Google Earth already had that info

[Eluan]

In Google Earth you could always easily see a shallow landmass around New Zealand, so what's new here?

Re:Google Earth already had that info

[Freischutz]

In Google Earth you could always easily see a shallow landmass around New Zealand, so what's new here?

There are lots of interesting things abut this. For one thing it would be interesting to know exactly how much of this continent was above sea level during the last glacial maximum. The same goes for the Atlantic area. There are several islands in the Atlantic that are now either sunken, smaller than they were then or just reefs now but that would have been much larger during this period and could have served as stop-over points for people on a trans oceanic migration to N-America. There is a little flash App of the area that allows you to drop the sea levels: http://sahultime.monash.edu.au... Seems New Zealand was at least twice as big as it is today about 20k years ago and that it was surrounded by islands that are now sunken. Makes me wish could drop sea levels in Google Earth.

Re:Google Earth already had that info

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaand we founf Atlantis! Again!

Aren't all islands...

[bazmail]

... the tip of something submerged?

Re:Aren't all islands...

[idji]

The point is that Australia is a continent 94% above the ocean and Zealandia is 94% under the water, So Australia is not the "tip", but new Zealand or even Hawaii are.

Re:Aren't all islands...

[evanh]

I think bazmail is trying to point out that there is a huge number of small islands around the planet. And that most have shallow seas around them.

Hawaii would be an exception to this in that it's a chain of deep sea volcanoes.

Re:Aren't all islands...

[ausekilis]

Close, Hawaii isn't quite a chain of volcanoes. It's a series of islands that happen to catalog movement over a hotspot in the middle of the Pacific ocean. You can read more about it here. It's actually quite interesting how an island forms as the plate moves, then after moving it's no longer on the hot spot and erodes away. There's many more 'islands' underneath the ocean surface in the Hawaii chain.

Re:Aren't all islands...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but the "something" is not always a continent.

Hewan

[Anonymous Coward]

http://forum.liputan6.com/t/hewan-menjijikan-ini-ternyata-banyak-manfaat/89755
http://ow.ly/P9Ay308J6Ym

Everyone has known that for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't y'all listen to George Noory? Jesus, people. Where have you been?

Menjijikan

[Anonymous Coward]

Apa bedanya jika Zealandia secara resmi benua? Reklasifikasi daerah akan mendorong ahli geologi untuk memasukkannya dalam studi banding benua rifting dan benua-laut batas.? Hewan

Re:Menjijikan

[Anonymous Coward]

si la resaca secara...

Stop copying Australia

[Carewolf]

New Zealand we love you. You don't have to be like Australia. We are worried about you. Just be yourself. You don't have to be a continent.

Re:Stop copying Australia

[quenda]

Howz about we call them a "dwarf continent".
Call the new continent "Gimli".

You mean 8th continent?

[TheOuterLinux]

1. Africa, 2. Europe, 3. Asia, 4. North America, 5. South America, 6. Antarctica, and 7. Australia. Please tell me this is an intelligence test....

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[ChunderDownunder]

So you didn't read the article, then? 2. and 3. in your list are defined as 'Eurasia'.

Re: You mean 8th continent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't pretend you don't know that not everyone divides America into two continents

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[azrael29a]

Europe and Asia geologically are on the same tectonic plate.

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[Anonymous Coward]

TheOuterLinux ( 4778741 ) wrote:

Please tell me this is an intelligence test....

Yes it is, and you failed it! X^D

The summary says geological continent, which should have been a clue. Also, TFA says

They note that it is elevated relative to the oceanic crust, as befits a continent, and its distinctiveness and thickness are also on par with continents one through six (Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia)

Also, IMO you forgot the Indian subcontinent. 55 million years ago the Indian plate crashed into Eurasian plate and formed the Himalayas, so there's a stronger argument for India being a separate continent from Eurasia than there is for Europe and Asia being separate continents.

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian lies! Fake news!

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[dbIII]

But we've always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[JonnyCalcutta]

I'm at war with Uranus!

Re: You mean 8th continent?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Lumping Europe and Asia together makes far more sense than lumping North America and South America together. NA and SA should properly be two continents, and calling them both "America" is both silly and can lead to confusion.

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[TheOuterLinux]

When you look at it that way, makes sense.

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not tell Indians, they might want to come to America to help!

Re:You mean 8th continent?

[RockDoctor]

It would be slightly more accurate to say that the European plate (built on the Fennoscandian and Ukrainian shields) is sutured against the Asian plate with a full-thickness low-lying trans-crustal fault with negligible remnant movement on it. The fault is still visible, and the differences on either side of it, but it has very ow activity levels. It's what we geologists call a "suture".

The Iapetus suture runs through Norway, southern Scotland, Ireland, and displaced by the Atlantic, off into Newfoundland and is similarly quiet. Not completely quiet, but we get fewer earthquakes than Oklahoma or New Madrid (for the last couple of centuries).

Extradite Kim Dot Com

[Plumpaquatsch]

Extradite Kim Dot Com, and it will re-emerge.

Re:Extradite Kim Dot Com

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's so fat! His weight is pushing the continent beneath the ocean.

Re:Extradite Kim Dot Com

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, you totally made that previous guy's comment funny!

At last!

[ukoda]

Yay, my own continent at last! Take that Australia now we have one too!

Re:At last!

[dwywit]

Oh, ghu, we're never going to hear the end of this......

Really, ozzies love kiwis, we wouldn't have anyone to look down on, otherwise.

Or beat at rugby and cricket.

My nephews are kiwis, I love 'em both.

Re:At last!

[mikaere]

Beat at the rugby ? Remind me again when you last had the Bledisloe Cup (or World Cup for that matter) ? You've got a good cricket team and a good league team, though.

Hmmm... but it looks like a part of Australia.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://pics.rsh.ru/img/au_nz_l1ote0i6.png

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Hogan (the guy who said that in the advert) is Australian. I know everybody thinks New Zealand is just adjacent to Australia but there is a significant distance between them.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Austria you fool.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more of a 'Bloomin Onion guy myself.

Cthulhu fhtagn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Sea Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it matter if Zealandia is officially a continent?

New Zealand now gets to claim a large amount of mineral and sea resources from the continental shelf and around it.

Re: Sea Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Definition of the continental shelf

1. The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.

2. The continental shelf of a coastal State shall not extend beyond the limits provided for in paragraphs 4 to 6.

3. The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal State, and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof.

4. (a) For the purposes of this Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by either:

(i) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to the outermost fixed points at each of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1 per cent of the shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope; or

(ii) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to fixed points not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope.

(b) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the foot of the continental slope shall be determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

5. The fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a)(i) and (ii), either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500 metre isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 5, on submarine ridges, the outer limit of the continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. This paragraph does not apply to submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, such as its plateaux, rises, caps, banks and spurs.

It could be defined as merely

[Anonymous Coward]

continental granite over denser basalt, where the seabed is just basalt. There isn't a huge amount of difference, really, between the two except one is thicker (with non basaltic rock on top of the basalt) and the lighter rocks get moved around on top of the worldwide basalt base. Ocean just has water instead of rock being moved.

94% submerged "continent"?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You could make a better case for the whole world to be called a single continent with just 74% under water.

Looks like Mother Earth has a better batting average than New Zealand.

Re:94% submerged "continent"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In geology, continental/oceanic crust is about rock chemistry rather than dry/wet. Oceanic crust is very basic (as in alkaline) with comparatively few minerals making up a handful of types of igneous rock. Continental crust is chemically much more acidic, with far more complex chemistry, stratification and longevity. Ocean crust is a maximum of 200M years old, whilst there are bits of continental crust that have been around for 4.4B years.

You can have two bits of land that are connected to one another, but on the different plates (California), or two that are separated by water (e.g. the UK and Europe) whilst definitely being part of the same plate. The claim that New Zealand sits on a separate continental plate to Australia is neither ridiculous nor immediately obvious, and these guys have done some research to determine the truth of the matter, hence TFA.

Fun fact: the seafloor and plate boundaries as shown on most maps are almost entirely fictitious. They were drawn up as examples of how it *could* look 30-40 years ago. Satellites can only "image" it through magnetic/gravitational anomalies (very low res), and we have explored so litle of the sea floor directly that every time a ship goes out and actually does a survey we find that what we thought we knew was wrong. Imagine if our map of the Moon was an artist's impression, with the only actual detail available within a km of where we had landed probes/missions - that's the state of deep oceanographic mapping in 2017.

Re:94% submerged "continent"?

[Solandri]

This isn't a simple case of whether or not water is on top of land. The Earth's crust is thinner under the oceans than under land masses.

Basically the crust is expanding at mid-oceanic ridges. The molten magma that surfaces in those regions solidifies into thin crustal plates. These plates are pushed apart until they meet resistance (other plates), and begin to bump up against each other. When they do that, the crust squashes and thickens - both above and below the water. The part that thickens above the water form continents and land masses.

The argument here is that the crust under New Zealand is one such thickened region, just that most of it is still underwater. However, every map of the plates I've seen places New Zealand at the edge of the Australian plate (i.e. there is no major tectonic activity between New Zealand and Australia). So it would seem to me to be more correct to say the Australian continent is actually larger than Australia and encompasses New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

If there's a revision to the continents that's needed, Europe and Asia need to be combined into a single Eurasian continent.

Do not confuse this....

[Quato]

Do not confuse Zealandia with Zoolandia... ancestral home of Derek Zoolander.

Time to update the Risk board?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing is for sure, this will encourage more folk to turtle in Australia & New Zealand for the respective continent bonuses.

So which continent is NZ pushed into?

[Anonymous Coward]

The indian sub continent is the result of an actual continent (India) being pushed into another (Eurasia) so that there is no ocean between them. NZ, as far as I recall, maybe it's changed in the last few weeks since last I looked at the map of the earth, is surrounded by ocean. And it can't be Aus, since that is surrounded by ocean too.

So where has NZ moved to so that it fits "sub continent" better?

Re: So which continent is NZ pushed into?

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, Zelandia crust is separated from Australian crust by a (small amount of) oceanic crust. This is different from volcanic island arcs accumulated on the west coast of California or India/Asia.

What? WHAT?

[rickb928]

I'm not confused about this. From my educational experience, you know what we call submerged continents?

Ocean Floor.

C'mon, stop this.

Re:What? WHAT?

[PPH]

Ocean Floor.

Nope. Different composition entirely. Continental plates ate lighter and 'float' on top of the mantle (exact details will better be explained by a real geologist). But the composition of continents and ocean floor is different.

There are bits of ocean floor that just happen to be above sea level and are dry land. Zeelandia, on the other hand, is a continental plate that is largely submerged.

Re:What? WHAT?

[cpotoso]

Because the ocean floor is not floating on top of the mantle? Complete nonsense.

Mediterranean Sea

[raymorris]

> as there is no surface discontinuity between Europe, Asia and Africa, the notion of "continent" as we understand it was completely arbitrary

There's a rather large surface discontinuity between Africa and Eurasia, comprised of the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Prior to 1869, these two separate landmasses used to touch, but just because I touch you with my finger doesn't make us one body.

Re:Mediterranean Sea

[Half-pint HAL]

But is Suez not a continuity? What measure makes it too short? Is the border between North America and South America Panama City? Darien? Somewhere else? Not forgetting that some people consider America to be a single continent.

That is only HALF a discovery

[Provocateur]

The other half should be more of a concern.

New Zealand has long been using this submerged landmass to conceal an impressive stockpile of 20 megaton nuclear missiles.

At this point, experienced journalists should ask:
a. Where are those missiles aimed?
b. Who has access to the button that launches these missiles?
c. How many warheads are in that stockpile?
d. How big is this submerged landmass? (How long have you known, etc)

At that point, I guess none of this stuff matters. But fault all the Slashdot eds till the cows come home, but when it comes to stuff thast matters they absolutely nailed this one.

Re:Killopond

[hackwrench]

1,000 Amys is 1 kilopond

Oblig. Global Warming

[pipingguy]

Yabbut climate change is going to put it even further underwater, so what's the point?

Re:Oblig. Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yabbut climate change is going to put it even further underwater, so what's the point?

We've got that sorted too. We just have an earthquake to raise the land up: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/86703833/startling-rise-of-55-metres-in-piece-of-coastline-during-kaikoura-earthquake

California

[DrYak]

I learned in school, 40 years ago, a continent is a big plate floating on the earth magma. That is actually a pretty strict definition. Plates are called "continental shelf", mere islands like Hawaii or Japan are not on a continental shelf.

No idea why the english/american wikipedia article disagrees, I guess because it is written by hobbyists?

The problem with this definition is that California would be on a different continent than the rest of the continental USA.
(The San Andreas fault separates the north american plate from the pacific plate)
So I suppose that's why everyday american-english wants to use different continent classifications than official scientific ?

And similarily. India is its own separate plate from the rest of eurasia. Also, traditionally europe and asia have been considered different continents, although they are on the same eurasian plate.

All in all, people have get used to some world view (list of continent), and it's hard to ask them to change as more details emerge and the scientific view shifts a bit.

(see: reptile and birds and mammals
in the common use : turtles and lizards are reptiles, the rest are not.
from an evolutionnary and classification point of view: if you include both turtles and lizards the thing you call "reptile" is such a big chunk of the tree, that birds and mammals appear actually inside of it as sub-branches)

Re:California

[David_Hart]

I learned in school, 40 years ago, a continent is a big plate floating on the earth magma. That is actually a pretty strict definition. Plates are called "continental shelf", mere islands like Hawaii or Japan are not on a continental shelf.

No idea why the english/american wikipedia article disagrees, I guess because it is written by hobbyists?

The problem with this definition is that California would be on a different continent than the rest of the continental USA.
(The San Andreas fault separates the north american plate from the pacific plate)
So I suppose that's why everyday american-english wants to use different continent classifications than official scientific ?

And similarily. India is its own separate plate from the rest of eurasia. Also, traditionally europe and asia have been considered different continents, although they are on the same eurasian plate.

All in all, people have get used to some world view (list of continent), and it's hard to ask them to change as more details emerge and the scientific view shifts a bit.

(see: reptile and birds and mammals
in the common use : turtles and lizards are reptiles, the rest are not.
from an evolutionnary and classification point of view: if you include both turtles and lizards the thing you call "reptile" is such a big chunk of the tree, that birds and mammals appear actually inside of it as sub-branches)

So... Does this mean that we can make Pluto a planet again? I'm pretty sure that if you asked the majority of the public, their world view would be that it is.

Re:California

[jandersen]

The problem with this definition is that California would be on a different continent than the rest of the continental USA.

Well, it seems to reflect how most Americans feel.

Re:California

[syntotic]

To make Asia own Europe. And California as well. But we want common use and scientific distinctions, well, distinct; it makes for something to be called scientific as opposed to, uh. doxa became episteme? I would call this a post-modern(ist) discussion.

Usage vs science

[DrYak]

1. Europe. 2. Asia. 3 Africa. 4 Australia. 5 North America 6. South America 7 Antarctica.

8 New Zealand?

In the common every day usage, yes. (Although most people skip Antartica).

The thing is, when you look into details and apply scientific definition (plate tectonics), lots of things shift aroudn :
Europe and asia are part of the same eurasia plate.
India is its own separate plate (and himalaya is the bump caused by both plates colliding)
California is actually on the same pacific plate as hawaii, not on the nothern american plate as the rest of the continental USA (hance the san andreas fault)
etc.

Re:Usage vs science

[darthsilun]

California is actually on the same pacific plate as hawaii, not on the nothern american plate as the rest of the continental USA (hance the san andreas fault) etc.

The San Andreas fault runs up the west side of California. The part of California that's west of the fault is rather small. Nearly all of California is on the North American plate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hypnotoad underlines

[zerosomething]

Hum Hum Hum Hum Hum Hum Yes yes, New Zealand is a continent Zealandia, yes. Hum Hum Hum Hum Hum Hum

Re:Killopond

[Anonymous Coward]

That did make me laugh.

I see she's returned in the second Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

Not a peep yet about Mordor

[dpilot]

We saw Mordor sinking at the end of "Return of the King", so that must be the rest of the missing NZ continent.

Budget

[PPH]

A group of geologists believe it is time to name a new continent.

And seek funds to study it. It's not like they wouldn't look at it had in only been some interesting structures on the ocean floor. But now they can request a separate package of funding under it's own name.

climate change deniers

[bugs2squash]

They were warned, the ancient people of Zealand, but did they listen, no ! They chose "clean coal", they drilled baby, they modded their cars with coal kits...

Re:New Zealand is top of a mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Grand Canyon isnt a ravine. of a largest iceberg sliding out to sea, but is actually the temples of Kemet and inside the black borg Cube in Mecca known as The Kabbah is actualy a black sculpture modelled after North America region west of Mississippi to Pacifist Ocean. And when Mormon religion talks about Native Americans as being the Lost tribes of Isreal and the Mississippi River being the original Junction of the Tigris and euphrates rivers, the determination holds true with the assessment of flat Earth model of when the planet was smaller and not yet hollowed out thus the plates and continents were upto eachother without oceans.

Re:New Zealand is top of a mountain

[ausekilis]

Um... what did I just read?

"surface discontinuity" major shipping route

[raymorris]

The statement was "there is no surface discontinuity". There is in fact a major shipping route separating Africa from Eurasia at Suez. Yeah at Suez the water isn't very deep, so it's handy that the claim was "SURFACE discontinuity".

More importantly, if we touch our fingertips together, that doesn't make us one person. That makes us two different people touching at one small spot. Prior the mid-1800s, Africa and Eurasia were two continents touching at one small spot. Now they are 100% separated by water.

Re:New Zealand is top of a mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a new course offered at the University of Washington that will help you figure that out.

Did we lose a continent the way we lost Pluto?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are -already- seven recognized continents. New Zealnd, if decided would be 8, not 7.

There are already 7 Continents

[manlygeek]

Unless my grade school teacher was wrong, we already have seven continents 1) North America 2) South America 3) Europe 4) Africa 5)Asia 6) Australia 7) Antarctica So, Zealandia would be the 8th if so determined to be a continent, right????

Re:There are already 7 Continents

[Khyber]

Yup, this was basic fucking elementary school stuff THIRTY YEARS AGO.

Apparently the Geological Society of America needs to go the fuck back to school.

Re:There are already 7 Continents

[Cyberpunk Reality]

Nah. Europe is more like a bunch of accreted terranes - stuff the Earth scraped off on the west side of Asia. Totally not a continent.

planet Earth lost it's foundation

[Anonymous Coward]

Planet Earth was nothing more than what appeared as a discarded Apple core, where only the top stem region of continents survived as a flat Earth northern aperture perspective, and tje Van Allen asteroid belt was the remnants of water planet Lucipher which did fall upon Earth to become the gathering of the depths of ocean. When enough mineral impact arrived to the depth through passing celestial bodies then. it had rebuilt it's mass. at the discard core. still accessible. where the green light flies out of the center of the challice (borealis aurora) but only when the ice melts away. See The Tibetan Budhist Warrior monk map of the known world.

Atlantis!

[naris]

This is actually Atlantis, it has been hiding under the Pacific all these millennia!

Re:Atlantis!

[Pfhorrest]

I actually used to rant and rave about that exact theory when I was young and dumb some 20-odd years ago.

Which raises the question: what exactly is the news story here? Zealandia has been at thing at least for decades.

NZ beats OZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is sinking - New Zealand has already sunk.

New Zealand beats Australia again, number one in continent sinking.

Sounds like someone is jealous of Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone is jealous of Australia

This would make it the 5th continent

[Michael Woodhams]

If you are claiming that it isn't coastlines and land areas which make continents, but rather regions of continental rock (whether above sea level or not). If this is so, you can no longer justify counting Africa as separate from Eurasia, or North and South America being separate from each other. So you can pick between the traditional 6 continents by land area, or four or five by crustal rock (Eurasia+Africa, Americas, Antarctica, Australia, and Zealandia if you think it is big enough.)

Incidentally, New Zealand may have been almost entirely submerged 24 to 21 million years ago. http://www.lincolnecology.org....
I don't know if there were any other major Zealandia land masses at the time.

Theories on Indonesia and Pacifica abound

[Etcetera]

One of my favorite was from a book in '05 that pinned it pretty definitively in Indonesia. Although the author passed away soon after, fans of his (and some relatives) have been commenting upon some of the research at atlan.org, which was the first thing I thought of when news of this broke.

Make Pluto Planet Again !

[DrYak]

So... Does this mean that we can make Pluto a planet again? I'm pretty sure that if you asked the majority of the public, their world view would be that it is.

And, right the next day after your comment, comes this /. story about making pluto a planet again.