SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Beneath the waves in the southwest Pacific Ocean lies a mostly hidden realm — dubbed Zealandia — that deserves to be called a continent, geologists say.
Geophysical data suggest that a region spanning 5 million square kilometres, which includes New Zealand and New Caledonia, is a single, intact piece of continental crust and is geologically separate from Australia, a team of scientists from New Zealand, Australia and New Caledonia argue in the March/April issue of GSA Today. (see 'Hidden crust' [Ed. Note: this refers to a map in source article.])
"If you could pull the plug on the world's oceans, then Zealandia would probably long ago have been recognized as a continent," says team leader Nick Mortimer, a geologist at GNS Science in Dunedin, New Zealand.
However, there is no international body in charge of designating official continents, and so the researchers must hope that enough of their colleagues agree to recognize the landmass. Otherwise, their proposal could remain more of a theoretical wish than a radical reshaping of what every child has to learn in geography class.
Mortimer, N. et al. GSA Today http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GSATG321A.1 (2017).
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday February 19 2017, @05:14PM
First off, the issue isn't new, nor is the name Zealandia. A quick internet search shows people arguing about this a decade ago, and the name has been around since at least a 1995 article by American geophysicist Bruce Luyendyk.
The Guardian article [theguardian.com] covering this story actually admits all of this is nothing new:
Geologists have argued in favour of Zealandia being recognised as its own continent intermittently over the past 20 years. [...] Mortimer [the lead author] told Guardian Australia that it was the first robust, peer-reviewed scientific paper to define and describe Zealandia, but its findings would offer “nothing new” for most New Zealand geoscientists. “They probably wonder what all the fuss is about.”
So what is this really all about? It's a PR campaign, as the authors admit. The Guardian article concludes:
But despite the evidence in support of it, whether or not Zealandia would come to be widely recognised as the seventh continent was dependant on history, said Mortimer. [...] “If Zealandia makes its way into popular culture and onto maps, that’s all the validation that we’ll seek.”
Here's the thing: there are lots of continental fragments [wikipedia.org] or "microcontinents." Basically, the unofficial definition of "continent" is something at least as big as Australia; anything smaller is a fragment. And, it's ALL fragments, even the "major" continents, so that term shouldn't be taken as disparaging in any way. I'm not a geologist, and I understand there's a lot of debate over cratons and the various ways of defining a (major) continent, but basically the unofficial definition boils down to: "if it's smaller than Australia, it isn't a (major) continent." This PR campaign mostly seems to want to shift that rather arbitrary dividing line by one place to admit one more continent... by why exactly stop there? It creates the Pluto problem: if you admit Pluto to the set of major planets, how can you exclude quite a few similar (and sometimes larger) bodies?
The study itself frankly starts to sound a little sad toward the end when issues of "Significance" come up:
The importance of Zealandia is not so much that there is now a case for a formerly little-known continent, but that, by virtue of its being thinned and submerged, but not shredded into microcontinents, it is a new and useful continental end member.
Oh my -- it can be "new and useful" member to the continental club? I don't mean to be overcritical of word choice, but does this sound to anyone else like somebody trying to join a sorority or something and to point out everything great about herself? "I know I'm a little thin, and that submerging of my head in the toilet bowl during hazing didn't give me the best look... but I can still be a 'useful member' -- honest!"
The authors DO make a strong case for why this continental fragment should be more thoroughly investigated to address various geological concerns, but even within the "Significance" section of the study, some of those concerns are about clarifying how "microcontinents" are created and evolve. I'm sympathetic to this group of New Zealand geologists, who want to elevate their land's status (despite the fact that it's apparently mostly submerged, pun intended). But ultimately this is mostly about an arbitrary definition, though admittedly perhaps not as clear-cut as the Pluto decision. Nevertheless, the division has to be drawn somewhere -- and what kids learn in school is already confused.
For example, why is this being called a potential "eighth continent," when geologically, Eurasia is considered a single one, thus making only SIX current continents? Answer -- the question of "continental status" was defined by cultural and historical significance, more so than geological definition. Thus, the authors are seeking to capitalize on this sort of significance by proposing membership in this "club."