Schmid, B.Michalsky, J. J.Slater, D. W.Barnard, J. C.Halthore, R. N.Liljegren, J. C.Holben, B. N.Eck, ThomasLivingston, J. M.Russell, P. B.2024-04-292024-04-292000-01-23http://hdl.handle.net/11603/33459In the fall of 1997, during an Intensive Observation Period (IOP), the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program conducted a study of water vapor abundance measurement at its Southern Great Plains (SGP) site. Among a large number of instruments, four sun-tracking radiometers were present to measure the columnar water vapor (CWV). All four solar radiometers retrieve CWV by measuring total solar transmittance in the 0.94-gm water vapor absorption band and subtracting contributions due to Rayleigh, ozone and aerosol transmittances. The aerosol optical depth comparisons among the same four radiometers has been presented elsewhere (Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 17, 2725-2728, 1999). We have used three different methods to retrieve CWV. In a first round of comparison no attempt was made to standardize on the same radiative transfer model and its underlying water vapor spectroscopy. In the second round of comparison we used the same line-by-line code (which includes recently corrected H2O spectroscopy) to retrieve CAN from all four suntracking radiometers. This decreased the mean CWV by 8% or 13%. The spread of 8% in the solar radiometer results found when using the same model is an indication of the other-than-model uncertainties involved in determining CWV from solar transmittance measurements with current instrumentation.31 pagesen-USThis work was written as part of one of the author's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.Public Domainhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/GeophysicsText