No, 337 degrees was the temperature at the time, of course 🤪

In case you hadn't seen yet, this event has sent seismic signals all around the word, with both body and surface waves. Below are Z-components of GSN stations, filtered 25-100 s.
Goran Ekstrom's surface wave detector gives this a surface magnitude = 5.4(!).

A longer sonification with slower sound rate factor (1000) gives a clearer and more detailed impression of the evolution of the "drumbeat" seismicity, which continues with increasing frequency right up to the largeest (landslide failure?) signal, but not after.

P.s., my angle on this is from ocean bottom seismology where we don’t have constant GPS synchronisation so sometimes have realllllly bad clock drifts 😬

You would think so, but the forum post above implies they might be independent - the BB and SM might be on different dataloggers, for example. In any case, calibrating with a teleseismic P arrival could be a decent fallback option.

So it seems like the BB sensor doesn’t have timing issues? Can the onset of the SM signal be aligned with it?

Assuming the clocks aren’t drifting substantially over time, you could maybe calibrate the timing with some P-wave arrivals from some known teleseismic earthquakes? There would probably be a +/1 second uncert with that but should suffice for rupture speed purposes. Is there a broadband sensor there?

So ~0.5g acceleration then?

Guilherme de Melo et al. (doi.org/10.1029/2024...) recently published a new scaling relationship for ocean transform fault earthquakes
log(rupturelength) = 0.81*Mw-3.68, yielding a 97 km rupture for a Mw 6.9 earthquake. Plus there has already been an aftershock at the western end of the fault.

The descending interferogram from Sentinel-1 (20250319-20250331) suggests that the earthquake rupture extends to 18.7 degrees and may have reached further south. More data in the next few days will reveal the full length of the rupture from this devastating earthquake.