Distinguish unrest, eruption and a revised report

Separate unrest from an observed eruption

Deformation and earthquakes can support an interpretation of subsurface activity. Surface lava establishes a different claim: magma has reached the surface. Select the June 3 packet and first inspect the initial evidence view. Write what would be needed before stating that an eruption is occurring, then reveal the surface-observation view.

These controls provide cumulative classroom views of historical evidence. Source links remain accessible throughout, so later hiding a panel does not restore an independent prediction. “Not shown in this view” also differs from “not reported in the notice.” Keep both distinctions in your notebook.

Build a timeline with three different timestamps

The June 3 HVO update reports eruption onset at approximately 00:30 HST and describes activity as ongoing at its scientific header time, 09:38 HST. The URL identifier includes a different time. Do not silently replace the scientific header with a timestamp parsed from the address.

Draw three rows: event or observation time, report-header time and URL-identifier time. Hawaii Standard Time is UTC minus ten hours for these dates. Adding ten hours converts 00:30 HST on June 3 to 10:30 UTC on June 3. The conversion changes the clock convention, not the physical event.

Some intervals are expressed relative to the report, such as the preceding day, while others have explicit endpoints. Preserve that wording. A header timestamp does not prove that every summarized observation occurred at that instant.

Compare preliminary and retrospective accounts

The June 9 follow-up retrospectively describes effusion from roughly June 3 00:30 to 09:00 HST. That gives approximately 8.5 hours. It distinguishes the end of effusion from later movement of already-emplaced flows.

Place the June 3 preliminary statement beside the June 9 retrospective one. Retain both with their publication context. Do not rewrite the earlier “ongoing” report as though the later cessation estimate was already available, or use the June 3 09:38 header as the final effusion time. Updating an interpretation with later evidence is different from altering its original provenance.

The June 9 record reports no lava erupting while its preceding-day summaries include inflation at both named tilt stations. This is a concrete counterexample to “inflation means erupting now.” It does not make inflation useless; it narrows what inflation alone can establish.

Put gas on its actual date and footprint

The follow-up includes approximately 400 tonnes/day measured on June 6 for the summit plus eruption site. That is not a June 9 vent-only measurement. In the June 3 packet, a contemporaneous eruption-area sulfur-dioxide result was not yet supplied; do not fill that gap with an older value or label it zero.

Convert the June 6 rate using 1000 kg per tonne and 86400 seconds per day: 400 × 1000 / 86400 ≈ 4.63 kg/s. Retain “approximately.” This is an emission-rate conversion, not the concentration breathed at a location and not the total mass released over several days. Calculating a longer-period mass would require evidence that the rate applied over that period.

On paper draw a date marker at June 6 and a bracket around its combined spatial footprint. This prevents a tempting but unsupported claim that all monitoring channels refer to one simultaneous location and interval.

Transfer: distinguish flowing material from continued supply

An unfamiliar follow-up says an already-emplaced lava flow continues moving after supply at the vent stops. Another observer sees a glowing surface and concludes that new lava must still be erupting. Identify the missing evidence and explain why neither glow nor movement alone settles the vent-supply question.