scholarly journals Assimilation of sea ice thickness derived from CryoSat-2 along-track freeboard measurements into the Met Office’s Forecast Ocean Assimilation Model (FOAM)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Kathleen Fiedler ◽  
Matthew Martin ◽  
Ed Blockley ◽  
Davi Mignac ◽  
Nicolas Fournier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Sampling Error ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Along Track ◽  
Assimilation Model

Abstract. The feasibility of assimilating SIT (sea ice thickness) observations derived from CryoSat-2 along-track measurements of sea ice freeboard is successfully demonstrated using a 3D-Var assimilation scheme, NEMOVAR, within the Met Office’s global, coupled ocean-sea ice model, FOAM (Forecast Ocean Assimilation Model). The Arctic freeboard measurements are produced by CPOM (Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling) and are converted to SIT within FOAM using modelled snow depth. This is the first time along-track observations of SIT have been used in this way, with other centres assimilating gridded and temporally-averaged observations. The assimilation greatly improves the SIT analysis and forecast fields generated by FOAM, particularly in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic-wide observation-minus-background assimilation statistics show improvements of 0.75 m mean difference and 0.41 m RMSD (root-mean-square difference) in the freeze-up period, and 0.46 m mean difference and 0.33 m RMSD in the ice break-up period, for 2015–2017. Validation of the SIT analysis against independent springtime in situ SIT observations from NASA Operation IceBridge shows improvement in the SIT analysis of 0.61 m mean difference (0.42 m RMSD) compared to a control without SIT assimilation. Similar improvements are seen in the FOAM 5-day SIT forecast. Validation of the SIT assimilation with independent BGEP (Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project) sea ice draft observations does not show an improvement, since the assimilated CryoSat-2 observations compare similarly to the model without assimilation in this region. Comparison with Air-EM (airborne electromagnetic induction) combined measurements of SIT and snow depth shows poorer results for the assimilation compared to the control, which may be evidence of noise in the SIT analysis, sampling error, or uncertainties in the modelled snow depth, the assimilated observations, or the validation observations themselves. The SIT analysis could be improved by upgrading the observation uncertainties used in the assimilation. Despite the lack of CryoSat-2 SIT observations over the summer due to the effect of meltponds on retrievals, it is shown that the model is able to retain improvements to the SIT field throughout the summer months, due to previous SIT assimilation. This also leads to regional improvements in the July SIC (sea ice concentration) of 5 % RMSD in the European sector, due to slower melt of the thicker modelled sea ice.

scholarly journals Assimilation of sea ice thickness derived from CryoSat-2 along-track freeboard measurements into the Met Office's Forecast Ocean Assimilation Model (FOAM)

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-85
Author(s):  
Emma K. Fiedler ◽  
Matthew J. Martin ◽  
Ed Blockley ◽  
Davi Mignac ◽  
Nicolas Fournier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Validation Dataset ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Forecast Validation ◽  
Along Track ◽  
Assimilation Model

Abstract. The feasibility of assimilating sea ice thickness (SIT) observations derived from CryoSat-2 along-track measurements of sea ice freeboard is successfully demonstrated using a 3D-Var assimilation scheme, NEMOVAR, within the Met Office's global, coupled ocean–sea-ice model, Forecast Ocean Assimilation Model (FOAM). The CryoSat-2 Arctic freeboard measurements are produced by the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) and are converted to SIT within FOAM using modelled snow depth. This is the first time along-track observations of SIT have been used in this way, with other centres assimilating gridded and temporally averaged observations. The assimilation leads to improvements in the SIT analysis and forecast fields generated by FOAM, particularly in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic-wide observation-minus-background assimilation statistics for 2015–2017 show improvements of 0.75 m mean difference and 0.41 m root-mean-square difference (RMSD) in the freeze-up period and 0.46 m mean difference and 0.33 m RMSD in the ice break-up period. Validation of the SIT analysis against independent springtime in situ SIT observations from NASA Operation IceBridge (OIB) shows improvement in the SIT analysis of 0.61 m mean difference (0.42 m RMSD) compared to a control without SIT assimilation. Similar improvements are seen in the FOAM 5 d SIT forecast. Validation of the SIT assimilation with independent Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project (BGEP) sea ice draft observations does not show an improvement, since the assimilated CryoSat-2 observations compare similarly to the model without assimilation in this region. Comparison with airborne electromagnetic induction (Air-EM) combined measurements of SIT and snow depth shows poorer results for the assimilation compared to the control, despite covering similar locations to the OIB and BGEP datasets. This may be evidence of sampling uncertainty in the matchups with the Air-EM validation dataset, owing to the limited number of observations available over the time period of interest. This may also be evidence of noise in the SIT analysis or uncertainties in the modelled snow depth, in the assimilated SIT observations, or in the data used for validation. The SIT analysis could be improved by upgrading the observation uncertainties used in the assimilation. Despite the lack of CryoSat-2 SIT observations available for assimilation over the summer due to the detrimental effect of melt ponds on retrievals, it is shown that the model is able to retain improvements to the SIT field throughout the summer months due to prior, wintertime SIT assimilation. This also results in regional improvements to the July modelled sea ice concentration (SIC) of 5 % RMSD in the European sector, due to slower melt of the thicker sea ice.

scholarly journals On retrieving sea ice freeboard from ICESat laser altimeter

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 2329-2346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirill Khvorostovsky ◽  
Pierre Rampal
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Sea Surface ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Laser Altimeter ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Along Track ◽  
Multiyear Ice

Abstract. Sea ice freeboard derived from satellite altimetry is the basis for the estimation of sea ice thickness using the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium. High accuracy of altimeter measurements and freeboard retrieval procedure are, therefore, required. As of today, two approaches for estimating the freeboard using laser altimeter measurements from Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), referred to as tie points (TP) and lowest-level elevation (LLE) methods, have been developed and applied in different studies. We reproduced these methods for the ICESat observation periods (2003–2008) in order to assess and analyse the sources of differences found in the retrieved freeboard and corresponding thickness estimates of the Arctic sea ice as produced by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Three main factors are found to affect the freeboard differences when applying these methods: (a) the approach used for calculation of the local sea surface references in leads (TP or LLE methods), (b) the along-track averaging scales used for this calculation, and (c) the corrections for lead width relative to the ICESat footprint and for snow depth accumulated in refrozen leads. The LLE method with 100 km averaging scale, as used to produce the GSFC data set, and the LLE method with a shorter averaging scale of 25 km both give larger freeboard estimates comparing to those derived by applying the TP method with 25 km averaging scale as used for the JPL product. Two factors, (a) and (b), contribute to the freeboard differences in approximately equal proportions, and their combined effect is, on average, about 6–7 cm. The effect of using different methods varies spatially: the LLE method tends to give lower freeboards (by up to 15 cm) over the thick multiyear ice and higher freeboards (by up to 10 cm) over first-year ice and the thin part of multiyear ice; the higher freeboards dominate. We show that the freeboard underestimation over most of these thinner parts of sea ice can be reduced to less than 2 cm when using the improved TP method proposed in this paper. The corrections for snow depth in leads and lead width, (c), are applied only for the JPL product and increase the freeboard estimates by about 7 cm on average. Thus, different approaches to calculating sea surface references and different along-track averaging scales from one side and the freeboard corrections as applied when producing the JPL data set from the other side roughly compensate each other with respect to freeboard estimation. Therefore, one may conclude that the difference in the mean sea ice thickness between the JPL and GSFC data sets reported in previous studies should be attributed mostly to different parameters used in the freeboard-to-thickness conversion.

The implications of selected processing methods on satellite altimetry derived sea ice thickness state and trends in the seasonal ice zone

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isolde Glissenaar ◽  
Jack Landy ◽  
Alek Petty ◽  
Nathan Kurtz ◽  
Julienne Stroeve
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Satellite Altimetry ◽  
Region Of Interest ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Baffin Bay ◽  
The Impact

<p>The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean is increasingly becoming dominated by seasonal sea ice. It is important to focus on the processing of altimetry ice thickness data in thinner seasonal ice regions to understand seasonal sea ice behaviour better. This study focusses on Baffin Bay as a region of interest to study seasonal ice behaviour.</p><p>We aim to reconcile the spring sea ice thickness derived from multiple satellite altimetry sensors and sea ice charts in Baffin Bay and produce a robust long-term record (2003-2020) for analysing trends in sea ice thickness. We investigate the impact of choosing different snow depth products (the Warren climatology, a passive microwave snow depth product and modelled snow depth from reanalysis data) and snow redistribution methods (a sigmoidal function and an empirical piecewise function) to retrieve sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry sea ice freeboard data.</p><p>The choice of snow depth product and redistribution method results in an uncertainty envelope around the March mean sea ice thickness in Baffin Bay of 10%. Moreover, the sea ice thickness trend ranges from -15 cm/dec to 20 cm/dec depending on the applied snow depth product and redistribution method. Previous studies have shown a possible long-term asymmetrical trend in sea ice thinning in Baffin Bay. The present study shows that whether a significant long-term asymmetrical trend was found depends on the choice of snow depth product and redistribution method. The satellite altimetry sea ice thickness results with different snow depth products and snow redistribution methods show that different processing techniques can lead to different results and can influence conclusions on total and spatial sea ice thickness trends. Further processing work on the historic radar altimetry record is needed to create reliable sea ice thickness products in the marginal ice zone.</p>

Winter Arctic sea ice freeboard, snow depth and thickness variability from ICESat-2 and NESOSIM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alek Petty ◽  
Nicole Keeney ◽  
Alex Cabaj ◽  
Paul Kushner ◽  
Nathan Kurtz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Cloud ◽  
Ice Drift ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Arctic Ice

<div> <div> <div> <div> <p>National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite‐ 2 (ICESat‐2) mission was launched in September 2018 and is now providing routine, very high‐resolution estimates of surface height/type (the ATL07 product) and freeboard (the ATL10 product) across the Arctic and Southern Oceans. In recent work we used snow depth and density estimates from the NASA Eulerian Snow on Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM) together with ATL10 freeboard data to estimate sea ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean. Here we provide an overview of updates made to both the underlying ATL10 freeboard product and the NESOSIM model, and the subsequent impacts on our estimates of sea ice thickness including updated comparisons to the original ICESat mission and ESA’s CryoSat-2. Finally we compare our Arctic ice thickness estimates from the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 winters and discuss possible causes of these differences based on an analysis of atmospheric data (ERA5), ice drift (NSIDC) and ice type (OSI SAF).</p> </div> </div> </div> </div>

Sea Ice Enhancements to Polar WRF*

2015 ◽  
Vol 143 (6) ◽  
pp. 2363-2385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith M. Hines ◽  
David H. Bromwich ◽  
Lesheng Bai ◽  
Cecilia M. Bitz ◽  
Jordan G. Powers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Surface Model ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
The Arctic Ocean

Abstract The Polar Weather Research and Forecasting Model (Polar WRF), a polar-optimized version of the WRF Model, is developed and made available to the community by Ohio State University’s Polar Meteorology Group (PMG) as a code supplement to the WRF release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). While annual NCAR official releases contain polar modifications, the PMG provides very recent updates to users. PMG supplement versions up to WRF version 3.4 include modified Noah land surface model sea ice representation, allowing the specification of variable sea ice thickness and snow depth over sea ice rather than the default 3-m thickness and 0.05-m snow depth. Starting with WRF V3.5, these options are implemented by NCAR into the standard WRF release. Gridded distributions of Arctic ice thickness and snow depth over sea ice have recently become available. Their impacts are tested with PMG’s WRF V3.5-based Polar WRF in two case studies. First, 20-km-resolution model results for January 1998 are compared with observations during the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean project. Polar WRF using analyzed thickness and snow depth fields appears to simulate January 1998 slightly better than WRF without polar settings selected. Sensitivity tests show that the simulated impacts of realistic variability in sea ice thickness and snow depth on near-surface temperature is several degrees. The 40-km resolution simulations of a second case study covering Europe and the Arctic Ocean demonstrate remote impacts of Arctic sea ice thickness on midlatitude synoptic meteorology that develop within 2 weeks during a winter 2012 blocking event.

scholarly journals Arctic Mission Benefit Analysis: Impact of Sea Ice Thickness, Freeboard, and Snow Depth Products on Sea Ice Forecast Performance

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kaminski ◽  
Frank Kauker ◽  
Leif Toudal Pedersen ◽  
Michael Voßbeck ◽  
Helmuth Haak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
High Accuracy ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Performance Gain ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Forecast Performance

Abstract. Assimilation of remote sensing products of sea ice thickness (SIT) into sea ice-ocean models has been shown to improve the quality of sea ice forecasts. Open questions are whether the assimilation of rawer products such as radar freeboard (RFB) can achieve yet a better performance and what performance gain can be achieved by the joint assimilation with a snow depth product. The Arctic Mission Benefit Analysis (ArcMBA) system was developed to address this type of question. Using the quantitative network design (QND) approach, the system can evaluate, in a mathematically rigorous fashion, the observational constraints imposed by individual and groups of data products. We present assessments of the observation impact (added value) in terms of the uncertainty reduction in a four-week forecast of sea ice volume (SIV) and snow volume (SNV) for three regions along the Northern Sea Route by a coupled model of the sea ice-ocean system. The assessments cover seven satellite products, three real products and four hypothetical products. The real products are monthly SIT, sea ice freeboard (SIFB), and RFB, all derived from CryoSat-2 by the Alfred Wegener Institute. These are complemented by two hypothetical monthly laser freeboard (LFB) products (one with low accuracy and one with high accuracy), as well as two hypothetical monthly snow depth products (again one with low accuracy and one with high accuracy). On the basis of the per-pixel uncertainty ranges that are provided with the CryoSat-2 SIT, SIFB, and RFB products, the SIT achieves a much better performance for SIV than the SIFB product, while the performance of RFB is more similar to that of SIT. For SNV, the performance of SIT is only low, the performance of SIFB higher and the performance of RFB yet higher. A hypothetical LFB product with low accuracy (20 cm uncertainty) lies in performance between SIFB and RFB for both SIV and SNV. A reduction in the uncertainty of the LFB product to 2 cm yields a significant increase in performance. Combining either of the SIT/freeboard products with a hypothetical snow depth product achieves a significant performance increase. The uncertainty in the snow product matters: A higher accuracy product achieves an extra performance gain. The provision of spatial and temporal uncertainty correlations with the EO products would be beneficial not only for QND assessments, but also for assimilation of the products.

scholarly journals Seasonal prediction and predictability of regional Antarctic sea ice

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-68
Author(s):  
Mitchell Bushuk ◽  
Michael Winton ◽  
F. Alexander Haumann ◽  
Thomas Delworth ◽  
Feiyu Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Heat Content ◽  
Seasonal Prediction ◽  
Prediction Skill ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice

AbstractCompared to the Arctic, seasonal predictions of Antarctic sea ice have received relatively little attention. In this work, we utilize three coupled dynamical prediction systems developed at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory to assess the seasonal prediction skill and predictability of Antarctic sea ice. These systems, based on the FLOR, SPEAR_LO, and SPEAR_MED dynamical models, differ in their coupled model components, initialization techniques, atmospheric resolution, and model biases. Using suites of retrospective initialized seasonal predictions spanning 1992–2018, we investigate the role of these factors in determining Antarctic sea ice prediction skill and examine the mechanisms of regional sea ice predictability. We find that each system is capable of skillfully predicting regional Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) with skill that exceeds a persistence forecast. Winter SIE is skillfully predicted 11 months in advance in the Weddell, Amundsen and Bellingshausen, Indian, and West Pacific sectors, whereas winter skill is notably lower in the Ross sector. Zonally advected upper ocean heat content anomalies are found to provide the crucial source of prediction skill for the winter sea ice edge position. The recently-developed SPEAR systems are more skillful than FLOR for summer sea ice predictions, owing to improvements in sea ice concentration and sea ice thickness initialization. Summer Weddell SIE is skillfully predicted up to 9 months in advance in SPEAR_MED, due to the persistence and drift of initialized sea ice thickness anomalies from the previous winter. Overall, these results suggest a promising potential for providing operational Antarctic sea ice predictions on seasonal timescales.

Optimizing Observations of Sea Ice Thickness and Snow Depth in the Arctic

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline A. Richter-Menge ◽  
Sinead L. Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness

Using CloudSat snowfall rate observations to constrain and characterize the uncertainties of Arctic snow-on-sea-ice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Cabaj ◽  
Paul Kushner ◽  
Alek Petty ◽  
Stephen Howell ◽  
Christopher Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
The Arctic Ocean ◽  
Ice Model

<p><span>Snow on Arctic sea ice plays multiple—and sometimes contrasting—roles in several feedbacks between sea ice and the global climate </span><span>system.</span><span> For example, the presence of snow on sea ice may mitigate sea ice melt by</span><span> increasing the sea ice albedo </span><span>and enhancing the ice-albedo feedback. Conversely, snow can</span><span> in</span><span>hibit sea ice growth by insulating the ice from the atmosphere during the </span><span>sea ice </span><span>growth season. </span><span>In addition to its contribution to sea ice feedbacks, snow on sea ice also poses a challenge for sea ice observations. </span><span>In particular, </span><span>snow </span><span>contributes to uncertaint</span><span>ies</span><span> in retrievals of sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry </span><span>measurements, </span><span>such as those from ICESat-2</span><span>. </span><span>Snow-on-sea-ice models can</span><span> produce basin-wide snow depth estimates, but these models require snowfall input from reanalysis products. In-situ snowfall measurements are a</span><span>bsent</span><span> over most of the Arctic Ocean, so it can be difficult to determine which reanalysis </span><span>snowfall</span><span> product is b</span><span>est</span><span> suited to be used as</span><span> input for a snow-on-sea-ice model.</span></p><p><span>In the absence of in-situ snowfall rate measurements, </span><span>measurements from </span><span>satellite instruments can be used to quantify snowfall over the Arctic Ocean</span><span>. </span><span>The CloudSat satellite, which is equipped with a 94 GHz Cloud Profiling Radar instrument, measures vertical radar reflectivity profiles from which snowfall rate</span><span>s</span><span> can be retrieved. </span> <span>T</span><span>his instrument</span><span> provides the most extensive high-latitude snowfall rate observation dataset currently available. </span><span>CloudSat’s near-polar orbit enables it to make measurements at latitudes up to 82°N, with a 16-day repeat cycle, </span><span>over the time period from 2006-2016.</span></p><p><span>We present a calibration of reanalysis snowfall to CloudSat observations over the Arctic Ocean, which we then apply to reanalysis snowfall input for the NASA Eulerian Snow On Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM). This calibration reduces the spread in snow depths produced by NESOSIM w</span><span>hen</span><span> different reanalysis inputs </span><span>are used</span><span>. </span><span>In light of this calibration, we revise the NESOSIM parametrizations of wind-driven snow processes, and we characterize the uncertainties in NESOSIM-generated snow depths resulting from uncertainties in snowfall input. </span><span>We then extend this analysis further to estimate the resulting uncertainties in sea ice thickness retrieved from ICESat-2 when snow depth estimates from NESOSIM are used as input for the retrieval.</span></p>

scholarly journals Impact of assimilating sea ice concentration, sea ice thickness and snow depth in a coupled ocean–sea ice modelling system

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sindre Fritzner ◽  
Rune Graversen ◽  
Kai H. Christensen ◽  
Philip Rostosky ◽  
Keguang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Concentration ◽  
Independent Observations

Abstract. The accuracy of the initial state is very important for the quality of a forecast, and data assimilation is crucial for obtaining the best-possible initial state. For many years, sea-ice concentration was the only parameter used for assimilation into numerical sea-ice models. Sea-ice concentration can easily be observed by satellites, and satellite observations provide a full Arctic coverage. During the last decade, an increasing number of sea-ice related variables have become available, which include sea-ice thickness and snow depth, which are both important parameters in the numerical sea-ice models. In the present study, a coupled ocean–sea-ice model is used to assess the assimilation impact of sea-ice thickness and snow depth on the model. The model system with the assimilation of these parameters is verified by comparison with a system assimilating only ice concentration and a system having no assimilation. The observations assimilated are sea ice concentration from the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility, thin sea ice from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity mission, thick sea ice from ESA's CryoSat-2 satellite, and a new snow-depth product derived from the National Space Agency's Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E/AMSR-2) satellites. The model results are verified by comparing assimilated observations and independent observations of ice concentration from AMSR-E/AMSR-2, and ice thickness and snow depth from the IceBridge campaign. It is found that the assimilation of ice thickness strongly improves ice concentration, ice thickness and snow depth, while the snow observations have a smaller but still positive short-term effect on snow depth and sea-ice concentration. In our study, the seasonal forecast showed that assimilating snow depth led to a less accurate long-term estimation of sea-ice extent compared to the other assimilation systems. The other three gave similar results. The improvements due to assimilation were found to last for at least 3–4 months, but possibly even longer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document