Beware the Journalistic Supervolcano

Figure 7b from Thorne and others (2013). This is the conceptual model from their study, showing two mantle piles moving towards each other and combining, eventually creating a new hotspot plume. Present day is marked in Time 2, when the two piles are just beginning to interact. Time 3 represents when a new plume would be initiated. Image: Thorne and others (2013), Earth and Planetary Science Letters. I read a lot of science media. Probably too much and I spend a lot of time and words trying to educate people on where the media goes astray when covering either volcanic events or geologic research ... but sometimes it feels like a losing battle. There is only so much time in the day to deal with every piece of slipshod science journalism I run across. Thankfully, some science media is great, many times coming from journalists and bloggers who deeply care about getting the science right and conveying thoughtfully. However, sometimes, the media coverage of a study just jumps that shark of volcanic hyperbole and leaves me wondering how I can ever keep up with dispelling scientific myths and misdeeds on these interwebs. So, as they say, I will "teach a man to fish." I've decided to disassemble a media report in io9 on a recent research article that has garnered some, ahem, questionable coverage. Now, I don't particularly mean to pick on io9 and the author of said piece, George Dvorsky ... oh wait, no I actually do. It suffers from a few of the classic blunders of science media reporting of research: a lack of understanding of the basics of the science research in question, relying too heavily on a press release, a penchant for hyperbole and inappropriate illustrations. This io9 piece is no by no means the worst of the coverage -- NPR gets that trophy -- but it, in fact, used that NPR story/interview as one of its sources. How to begin this autopsy? When I read an article in the mainstream media (internet or traditional), the first thing I do is IGNORE THE HEADLINE. Few things, especially in this age of pageview-hunting, are as misleading and sensationalist as the headline. For this io9 article, the chosen headline was "A Massive New Volcano May Be Forming in the Pacific." So, at first glance, you're thinking that this is a something happening RIGHT NOW. Maybe tomorrow. For fun, let's compare it to the title of the research study by Michael Thorne and others in