Comparison for the efficiency biases between `detect` and `detectc`

Here we compare the efficiency biases between detect and detectc.

Loading data

sst_full=NaN(32,32,datenum(2016,12,31)-datenum(1982,1,1)+1);
for i=1982:2016;
    file_here=['sst_' num2str(i)];
    load(file_here);
    eval(['data_here=sst_' num2str(i) ';'])
    sst_full(:,:,(datenum(i,1,1):datenum(i,12,31))-datenum(1982,1,1)+1)=data_here;
end

Comparing `detect` and `detectc`

Here we detect MHWs during 1982-2016 based on climatologies during 1982-2005.

tic
[MHW,mclim,m90,mhw_ts]=detect(sst_full,datenum(1982,1,1):datenum(2016,12,31),datenum(1982,1,1),datenum(2005,12,31),datenum(1993,1,1),datenum(2016,12,31));; %take about 30 seconds.
toc

It takes about ~10 seconds on my local machine.

tic
[MHWc,mclimc,m90c,mhw_tsc]=detectc(sst_full,datenum(1982,1,1):datenum(2016,12,31),datenum(1982,1,1),datenum(2005,12,31),datenum(1993,1,1),datenum(2016,12,31));; %take about 30 seconds.
toc

Using the function detectc, it takes only ~7 seconds and the biases will increase as the data size grows.

Examining `detectc` MHW outputs

Here we take a look at the MHW output from detectc. In this output, MHW events are stored in a cell, with each grid cell holding its corresponding MHWs.

>> size(MHWc{1,1})

ans =

    62    10

Here we can see 62 MHW events are detected in the grid (1,1).

Do we get the same number of events as what we got from detect?

>> num_mhw=cellfun(@(x)size(x,1),MHWc);
num_mhw=nansum(num_mhw(:))

num_mhw =

       70097

The total number of MHW events over the whole domain remains the same as the output from detect.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!