Click the ocean and a tsunami crosses the real seafloor at the speed the physics allows, on a globe you can turn. Then replay 11 March 2011 on one clock: the USGS rupture model starts the wave, 35 NOAA deep-ocean buoys record when it passed, 141 seismometers on every continent record the earthquake, and you locate it yourself from those records, dropping any station you like, before the six published origins are revealed. Every number is recomputed from the instrument bytes by a check that reads this page; the wave arrivals come from two engines that share no code; every disagreement is printed; and a model is never called an observation. It is the thousandth layer of this ground, held open for the one object that needed more than a night.
What the buoys recorded, and when the model says the wave got there
instrument reduction modelThirty-six NOAA DART tsunameters were in the water on 11 March 2011; one of them (46413) has no record at NCEI for that deployment, so the rack holds 35 stations. Each is a pressure sensor on the seafloor, in 1,798 to 5,923 m of water, that reports the height of the water column above it; NOAA subtracts its own harmonic tide fit, and the residual is what is drawn. The nearest, 21418, sits 552 km from the epicentre and recorded a wave 1.87 m high; the farthest with a detection, 32401 off Chile, is 15,867 km away and saw 32 mm, 20 h 37 min after the origin.
Two things the records insisted on. First, 25 of the 35 buoys felt the earthquake minutes after the origin, before any water had moved: a pressure sensor on the seabed is also a seismometer, and the surface waves that circled the planet crossed the array at 3 to 4 km/s. So the arrival detectors open only after the earliest instant a tsunami could physically arrive (the distance, less 300 km for the size of the source, over the speed of a long wave in 6,000 m of water), and the page says so rather than pretend the first wiggle was the sea. Second, the two detectors, a four-sigma threshold held for three samples and a delayed energy ratio, agree to within minutes in the far field and disagree by up to 11 minutes at the nearest buoy, where the seismic coda has not died away when the tsunami arrives. 4 detections sit within two minutes of the gate and should be read as bounds. Both rules are on the page; switch between them and watch the table move.
The model side is two engines that share no code. The fast-marching solver treats the ocean as a medium with speed √(gh) in every cell of the 8-arc-minute ETOPO 2022 grid and finds the least-time path from the whole uplifted region (every cell displaced by at least a tenth of the peak) to every other cell; on a flat ocean of one depth it is within 0.6% of the exact circle, and across a depth step it takes the refracted path to within half a per cent of Snell's law. The shallow-water solver integrates the linear long-wave equations on the sphere, on an Arakawa C-grid, forward-backward in time, with land as walls; a wave has "arrived" in a cell when the surface first moves by 10 mm, the same rule the buoy detectors use for their floor. That second engine is the one the ocean above runs on the GPU (in WebGL, 7-second steps on 3.6 million cells); the CPU copy in the verifier is the reference it is checked against, and the page prints both so a port that drifted would show. The two engines agree with each other at every buoy to a few minutes.
Against the buoys they do less well, and the shape of the failure is the finding. Inside 3,000 km the observed arrival minus the fast-marching prediction is -0.1 min (median of 7, spread 2.8 min). Beyond 3,000 km, leaving out the three buoys whose detector is known to have caught a later wave and the 3 whose detection sits on the gate itself, it is +21.6 min (median of 22, spread 10.2 min), which is +4.8% of the travel time, and it is late at 21 of those 22 buoys. The exception, 51426 (13 min early), is the rule misfiring, not the sea arriving early: there the residual creeps over a low threshold on a slow drift, and the visible rise comes later than the model like everywhere else. The rule stays as stated and the row stays in the statistic. Part of that is the detector: a rule that waits for four sigma catches a few-centimetre wave some way up its leading slope, not at its foot. Part is physics the linear equations leave out. Two independent studies of exactly this event found the observed Pacific arrivals later than the classical long-wave prediction by about one to two per cent, and traced the delay to the elasticity of the solid Earth under the moving water, the compressibility of seawater, and the water's own weight (Tsai, Ampuero, Kanamori and Stevenson, Geophysical Research Letters 40, 2013; Watada, Kusumoto and Satake, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119, 2014). This page does not model any of that. It prints the gap, station by station, and lets you see that it grows with distance.
| buoy | depth m | dist km | observed | fast marching | CPU wave | GPU wave | obs − FMM | obs − CPU |
|---|
What the seismometers recorded, and where that puts the earthquake
instrument reduction inversion141 vertical, one-sample-per-second records from the IU, II, IC and G networks of the global seismographic network, fetched as miniSEED from EarthScope and decoded by this page's own decoder (checked sample for sample against ObsPy on all 141 files), from 05:40 to 07:30 UTC. Nothing is filtered for the display beyond removing a linear trend; each trace is scaled so the five minutes around its P onset are visible under the surface waves that are ten to a hundred times larger. The gold curve is the P travel time in the ak135 Earth model for a source at the depth you choose, computed by an engine written for this page and checked against ObsPy's TauP to within 0.003 s at every distance from 5° to 120°.
The onsets are picked by a short-term/long-term energy ratio with the onset refined backwards by an information criterion (Maeda's AIC), threshold adjustable above. Against the NEIC analysts' picks at the 80 stations within 100° that both sides have, ours land a median +0.6 s later (spread 1.5 s), 47 of 76 within 2 s and 70 within 5 s; the outliers are named in the record, two of them (IU.FUNA and IU.RAO) plainly wrong picks that the robust fit below shrugs off. The agency picks are on the page too; switch to them and the location barely moves, which is the point.
Locate from records. The map searches every point of a 0.1° grid over the box for the origin time and place that best explain the picks in the ak135 model (a robust L1 fit, depth fixed at the value you choose, stations beyond 100° excluded because the first arrival there is a core phase this engine does not compute). The gold surface is the misfit; the cross is the minimum; the dots are 120 bootstrap refits with stations resampled. Click any trace to throw that station away and watch the solution answer. Then turn on only records that had arrived by the clock and drag the clock rail: at one minute after the origin only the Japanese stations have reported and the fit is a smear; the solution tightens as the P wave reaches each continent. That is not a claim about when any agency issued an alert. It is what this frozen apparatus could have known from the samples that physically existed at each instant.
With every usable station and depth fixed at 30 km, the fit lands at 38.18°N 142.58°E, 22 km from the USGS official origin and +0.3 s from its time, with a bootstrap 95% radius of 13 km and a median absolute residual of 0.87 s over 92 stations. From the analysts' own picks the same code lands 6 km from the official origin. The agency origins are hidden from the fit and from the map until you reveal them.
Six published origins exist for this earthquake, from five agencies, spread over 6.0 s in time and 48 km on the map. None is ground truth. The one at the top of the rack's selector defines t = 0 for everything on the page; change it and every residual is recomputed under the new clock.
Vertical ground velocity in raw digitiser counts, each trace scaled to its own peak, stacked by distance from the recovered epicentre. Click a trace to drop that station from the fit; click again to restore.
| origin | lat | lon | depth km | time UTC | mag | status | from recovered |
|---|
What the ground did under Japan, as the accelerometers recorded it
reductionThe Japan Meteorological Agency published the accelerograms of 52 of its own stations for this earthquake, 100 samples a second on three axes for six minutes. Its terms let anyone download and compute from them and forbid passing the files on, so this page stores not one sample and shows only what it computed, with the attribution JMA asks for. What it computed is the two numbers JMA itself publishes per station, from the same bytes, by JMA's own published recipe: the peak acceleration, and the instrumental seismic intensity (the 1996 algorithm: a fixed band-pass on the vector sum and the acceleration exceeded for a total of 0.3 s). The strongest record here is 大船渡市大船渡町 (47512), 102 km from the epicentre, at 1,076.4 gal against JMA's 1,076.4, intensity 5.7; the famous 2,933 gal at Tsukidate belongs to a different network (K-NET, registration required) and is not on this page.
Of 208 published peak values, 170 come out exactly the same to a tenth of a gal, and 38 come out larger, never smaller. The intensity matches at 44 of 52 stations and is a tenth higher at the other 8, never lower. Both one-sided residues have one cause, and it was tested rather than assumed: JMA quotes the peak of the sixty-second window with the highest intensity, while these numbers are taken over the whole file, and at the two stations checked by hand the window peak reproduces JMA's figure to a hundredth. The P onset was picked at 47 stations; 9 records began after the P wave had already passed, because those instruments start on a trigger, and are marked. No S onset is reported at all: on every record a pick lands a median 23 s before the S wave could arrive, inside the coda of a rupture that went on for two and a half minutes, so the detector was refused rather than its answer kept.
The file headers also carry JMA's own preliminary hypocentre, which this page adds as a sixth published origin: 38.103°N 142.860°E, 24 km, at 05:46:18.103 UTC, 6.0 s before the USGS origin and 48 km from it. Choose it at the top of the buoy rack and every clock on the page moves with it.
| station | dist km | our PGA gal | JMA PGA gal | our intensity | JMA intensity | P onset | record starts |
|---|
How far the ground moved and stayed moved, from satellite positioning
reduction modelThe plan said Japan's dense GNSS network, GEONET, was closed to us, and as a source it is: the Geospatial
Information Authority gates its daily solutions behind an application, so this page stores none of its bytes and
quotes only its published headline (The largest horizontal displacement detected by GEONET was 5.40 m at M-Oshika as a co-seismic deformation of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, and the largest vertical displacement was an uplift of 2.08 m at Kurikoma-2
, Tsuji and colleagues, 2017). But the Nevada
Geodetic Laboratory reprocesses the public RINEX of about 1,200 GEONET marks and publishes daily positions for
anyone to use with a citation, so the arch got built after all. 29 stations within 1,500 km
were fetched by a stated rule; 23 of them have positions in the ten days after the earthquake, and
4 more went off the air for weeks and report only the offset at their first return, which is coseismic plus that
many days of afterslip and is labelled so.
The offset is the difference between a linear fit to the thirty days before and the mean of the ten days after, skipping the day itself. Mizusawa (MIZU), 142 km from the epicentre, moved 2.34 m east and 1.25 m south, and sank 0.10 m, with a formal uncertainty of 6 mm; the rupture model through Okada says 2.72 m east there. The largest coseismic offset in the set is 4.49 m at J918, 96 km out; Oshika (J550), the station GSI names for its 5.40 m, returned after 29 days reading 5.61 m, larger than GSI's coseismic number by the afterslip of a month, and 1.11 m lower, against GSI's roughly 1.2 m of subsidence. Changing the windows moves a station's answer by a median 2.5 cm, and by 8.2 cm at worst (J914), almost all of it from how much postseismic creep the after-window swallows.
The finding is in the map. Observed against the rupture model's prediction at the same 23 stations, the residual is 0.23 m RMS horizontally, and the ratio of observed to modelled motion falls with distance: a median of 1.11 inside 150 km (6 stations, where the observation carries afterslip), 0.75 from 150 to 500 km (8), and 0.62 beyond 500 km (9). A model fitted to seismic waves predicts more static far-field displacement than the ground kept. That is not a defect in the map or the arithmetic: the two readings of the same model (our Okada sum and the grid USGS published) differ by 0.20 m RMS in east, which bounds our share, and the rest is the model.
| station | dist km | east m | north m | up m | model east | model north | model up | window spread m |
|---|
The rupture model that starts the wave, and its arithmetic checked
modelThe wave in the ocean above starts from the USGS NEIC finite-fault model of the rupture (Hayes, 2011, product revised 2017): 325 patches of 25 by 16.6 km on three planes striking 198°, each with a slip, a rake, a rupture time and a rise time, inverted from teleseismic body and surface waves. It is a model, the one borrowed thing on this page, and the page treats it as such: every patch is drawn, the arithmetic is audited, and the seafloor displacement is recomputed here from the patches with Okada's 1985 elastic half-space solution rather than taken from the product. That recomputation is checked against the deformation grid USGS published from the same model: the vertical component agrees to an RMS of 0.058 m over 400 points against a peak of 5.28 m, the worst point being 0.80 m off on a steep gradient near the trench. The peak uplift of the model is +11.26 m at 38.55°N 143.52°E and the deepest subsidence -5.16 m; 143.7 km³ of water is lifted and 86.5 km³ let down, and that shape, released all at once at t = 0, is the ocean's initial condition. The real rupture took about two and a half minutes, which the wave model ignores and the moment-rate curve beside the map does not.
The check
Four kinds of thing appear on this page and they are coloured apart: instrument samples as recorded (buoy water column, seismometer counts), reductions this page performs on them (tide-removed residuals, arrival detection, picks, trace scaling), inversions (our location; the agencies' origins) and models (the rupture model, Okada displacement, ak135 travel times, both wave engines). A model never wears an instrument's colour.
- Bytes. Every source file is content-addressed in
sources/*.lock.jsonwith URL, retrieval time, licence and SHA-256; the verifier re-hashes what is committed and, with--online, refetches and compares. - Bathymetry. ETOPO 2022 subsampled by a stated rule; four known points checked (Challenger Deep region NaN m, Everest, the seafloor under buoy 21418 against NOAA's own depth, Denver), and the index arithmetic checked against the server cell by cell.
- Travel times. ak135 P and Pdiff by our own tau-p integration against ObsPy TauP on a 6-depth × 17-distance grid: worst 0.003 s beyond 5°.
- Decoder. Our miniSEED decoder against ObsPy: 141 of 141 files identical, every sample and every start time.
- Okada. Okada's own 1985 check-list table reproduced to all printed digits; the USGS deformation grid recomputed from the patches (above).
- Moment. Three routes to the seismic moment of the model (subfault sum, the .param file's sum, the integral of the moment-rate function) printed side by side with the header, including the 3% by which they disagree.
- Wave engines. Thirteen engine tests: speed against √(gh), refraction against Snell, a wall that leaks nothing, energy conserved to 0.2% over a thousand steps, and the two engines against each other. The GPU port is checked on this page, live, against the CPU engine's arrivals at every buoy.
- Strong motion. The intensity algorithm and the peaks recomputed from JMA's own files and compared with JMA's published table value by value (170 of 208 peaks exact, 44 of 52 intensities exact, none below); the engine checked against NumPy; a test that fails if any waveform byte is ever committed.
- Permanent displacement. Offsets recovered from synthetic steps within their uncertainty; the rupture model re-evaluated at every station by a fresh Okada sum; the series and the offsets on the page checked against each other; the GSI headline quoted, not stored.
- Location. Synthetic picks with known answers recovered; the real fit never sees the agency origins; bootstrap, leave-one-out and held-out residuals reported.
- The page. The verifier reads this HTML and checks every number in this prose against its own recomputation, and runs the shipped engine files byte for byte against the ones in the research directory.
The standalone check is verify-the-earthquake-reassembled.mjs, published to read from the placard at the
foot of this page. It is not yet a program a stranger can run from that copy alone: it reads the committed records
(the decoded seismograms, the buoy windows, the USGS files), which are datasets and belong in this site's Data Room
before a check can fetch them from outside. That route is the next edge, and until it is built the honest word for the
published copy is read, not run.
What this does not claim
- No wave height. The linear long-wave equations get first-arrival times about right and amplitudes wrong: no dispersion, no nonlinearity, no run-up, no coast. The colours in the ocean are a signed displacement scaled to look like something; they are not metres and the page never prints one.
- The source is borrowed and instantaneous. The rupture model is an inversion by other people; the wave starts from its Okada displacement released in one instant, ignoring the two and a half minutes the rupture took and the short-wavelength filtering of the water column.
- The arrival at a buoy is a detection, not an onset. Both rules wait for the signal to exceed noise; for a few-centimetre far-field wave that is tens of minutes up the leading slope. The systematic lateness beyond 3,000 km is partly that and partly physics the model omits, and the page cannot separate the two.
- The seafloor is coarse. 8 arc minutes (about 15 km) on desktop, 15 on narrow screens, point-sampled from the 60-arc-second product with no averaging; the deepest cells alias, and an island one cell wide can vanish.
- The location is a fixed-depth teleseismic fit in a spherical, laterally uniform Earth with no station corrections; for a rupture 500 km long "the origin" is where slip began, not where most of it happened.
- Picks are made on 1-sample-per-second data, so an onset is uncertain by a second or two before any physics.
- The shaking is numbers, not records. JMA permits use and forbids redistribution, so no accelerogram is drawn; the peaks are whole-file peaks and sit at or above JMA's per-window values by construction; nine trigger-started records miss their P; S onsets are refused for this event.
- The permanent displacements are daily solutions, not the instant of the earthquake. The after-window holds days of afterslip, the frame is IGS14 as NGL processed it, and a station that was down for weeks reports coseismic plus creep, labelled as such.
- The seismic pick-up on the buoys is real and the gate that skips it is a modelling choice (a lower bound on tsunami speed); anyone inverting the source location should re-derive that gate.
- This page stays with the instruments. It says nothing about what the wave did when it reached land, and does not use that as texture. The official record of the disaster is elsewhere and is linked below.
Sources and rights
- USGS ComCat event
usp000hvnu: five origin products, phase data (NEIC picks), and the finite-fault product (complete_inversion.fsp, basic_inversion.param, surface_deformation.disp, moment_rate.mr). US Government work, public domain. earthquake.usgs.gov - NOAA NCEI, DART records for the 2011 Honshu event: per-station water-column files and harmonic tide fits, plus the station inventory used to verify positions. Public domain. ngdc.noaa.gov
- NOAA NCEI ETOPO 2022 Global Relief Model, 60-arc-second bedrock elevation, via OPeNDAP. Public domain. ncei.noaa.gov
- EarthScope (formerly IRIS) FDSN web services: station metadata and miniSEED waveforms, networks IU (doi:10.7914/SN/IU), II (doi:10.7914/SN/II), IC, G. Openly available. earthscope.org
- Japan Meteorological Agency, strong-motion waveform data for the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake (52 JMA stations, 40.2 MB downloaded, none stored). Site terms compatible with CC BY 4.0 via the Public Data License 1.0; the strong-motion notes forbid providing the data to third parties, so only derived numbers appear here. Source: Japan Meteorological Agency website, data.jma.go.jp.
- Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, daily GNSS positions (.tenv3, IGS14) for 29 stations, used with the requested citation: Blewitt, G., W. C. Hammond and C. Kreemer (2018), Harnessing the GPS data explosion for interdisciplinary science, Eos 99. The underlying stations are GEONET marks operated by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, whose own data are gated and whose published headline is quoted under its Public Data License 1.0. geodesy.unr.edu
- ak135 velocity model, Kennett, Engdahl and Buland 1995, as distributed with ObsPy (used as the reference implementation for travel times and the miniSEED decoder; not part of the shipped page).
- Okada, Y. (1985). Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 75(4), 1135–1154. Test vectors from its Table 2.
- Tsai, V. C., Ampuero, J.-P., Kanamori, H. and Stevenson, D. J. (2013). Estimating the effect of Earth elasticity and variable water density on tsunami speeds. Geophysical Research Letters 40. Watada, S., Kusumoto, S. and Satake, K. (2014). Traveltime delay and initial phase reversal of distant tsunamis coupled with the self-gravitating elastic Earth. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119. Cited for the far-field delay; not reproduced here.
- For the human record of the disaster this page deliberately does not narrate: the Japan Meteorological Agency's pages on the event.