Defending a Dream: Charles Greeley Abbot's Years at the Smithsonian

On Abbot, see Zaban Bessie Jones , Lighthouse of the skies (Washington, D. C., 1965), chaps. 9–12; Greeley Charles Abbot , Adventures in the world of science (Washington, D. C., 1958); and Jean Deborah Warner , “Charles Greeley Abbot”, Year book of The American Philosophical Society , 1975, 111–16. Before Abbot , Smithsonian Secretaries were appointed for life. See Wetmore Alexander Oral History, 18 April/8 May 1974, 74, Smithsonian Institution Archives (hereinafter SI Archives). Before its move to Cambridge in the 1950s, the Smithsonian's Astrophysical Observatory was referred to as APO, whereas today it is referred to as SAO. We adopt the form SAO in this article.

Langley S. P. , “Report of the Mount Whitney Expedition”, quoted in Abbot, op. cit. (ref. 1), 17. Abbot always reminded his audiences of his mission to prove Langley's theories, as in his news release (undated) entitled “As Langley predicted, experiments show the prolonged influence of solar changes on terrestrial temperature” (Box 199, folder 1, Abbot Papers, SI Archives).

Aldrich Peggy Kidwell , “Prelude to solar energy: Pouillet, Herschel, Forbes and the solar constant”, Annals of science , xxxviii (1981), 457–76.

Jones , op. cit. (ref. 1), chaps. 9–11, appendix 2.

Greeley Charles Abbot , The Earth and the stars (New York, 1925), 135.

Kidwell , op. cit. (ref. 3), 474.

Agnes Clerke identifies the importance of the solar constant, and reviews the related problem of the amount of absorption created by the Earth's atmosphere, its effect on knowledge of the amount and character of solar heat, and on calculations of the temperature of the solar surface, See Agnes Clerke , Problems in astrophysics (London, 1903), 63–69.

On Abbot's invitation to move to Allegheny, see John Brashear Hale G. E. , 23 January 1905; and on Abbot's reaction to Hale's invitation, see Abbot to Hale, 14 November 1904, Hale Papers. Although Abbot remained publicly silent on revisions of the solar constant, he frankly discussed Langley's errors in correspondence with George Ellery Hale. See Abbot C. G. Hale G. E. , 12 February 1905, Hale Papers. I am indebted to Ron Brashear for pointing out this correspondence. See also Abbot C. G. , “The Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution”, Annual report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution , 1948, 167–75, p. 171; letter, Abbot C. G. to Anders Angstrom, 10 February 1913 (Record Unit 45, Office of the Secretary, 1907–1925 ( Walcott Charles D. ), Box 68, SI Archives).

Abbot's solar constant work ultimately established the limits within which the modern value resides. He reduced uncertainties from orders of magnitude to only a few percent. At the end of his long career, he acknowledged that the 1915 balloon work “pretty well quieted the criticism and all over the world they regarded our value of the solar constant as at any rate within one per cent of correct” ( Abbot C. G. Oral History, 1957, 12; excerpt in “Tyrone data sheets”, Box 200, Abbot Papers, SI Archives). See also Russell Norris Henry to Abbot Greeley Charles , 10 March 191[5] ( Russell Norris Henry Papers, Princeton University Library). Russell later used Abbot's value for the solar constant (then 1938) in his research as well as in his influential introductory astronomical textbook, and it persisted virtually unchanged in the advanced textbooks in solar and stellar atmospheres research in the space age. See Russell H. N. Dugan R. S. Stewart J. Q. , Astronomy (New York, 1926); Aller L. H. , Astrophysics: The atmospheres of the Sun and stars , 2nd edn (New York, 1963), 274. See also The solar constant and the solar spectrum measured from a research aircraft at 38,000 feet (Goddard Space Flight Center Report X-322-68-304, August 1968; copy in Box 184, Abbot C. G. Papers, SI Archives). See also Newkirk Gordon Jr , “Variations in solar luminosity”, Annual reviews of astronomy and astrophysics , xxi (1983), 429–67, pp. 445–6. On subsequent space-borne studies of solar irradiance, see Karl Hufbauer , Exploring the Sun: Solar science since Galileo (in press), chap. 9.

In 1939 Abbot recalled that it was the work of Clayton that convinced him that correlations between solar variations and terrestrial weather existed ( Abbot C. G. , “The variations of the solar constant and their relation to weather: Reply to Paranjpe and Brunt”, Quarterly journal of the Royal Meteorological Society , lxv, no. 280 (April 1939), 215–36, p. 217). See also Abbot C. G. to Merriam J. C. , 13 May 1925 (Box 4), and Abbot correspondence with Clayton H. H. (Box 5, folders 5–11; Box 6, folders 1–7; Box 192, folder 9, Abbot Papers, SI Archives). See also Abbot C. G. , “Supplementary note”, pp. 29–30, in Alfred Fowler (ed.), Transactions of the International Astronomical Union , i (London, 1922).

Abbot , op. cit. (ref. 5), 135.

Marvin C. F. to Abbot C. G. , 21 April 1925, 7 (Abbot Papers, SI Archives). This agrees with contemporary assessments, see Hufbauer , op. cit. (ref. 9), chap. 9.

Marvin , ibid. , 12–13 (emphasis in original).

Marvin , ibid. , 13.

Abbot C. G. to Marvin C. F. , 27 April 1925 (Abbot Papers, SI Archives).

Untitled and undated draft, clipped with fragments of Abbot's rebuttal to Marvin's criticisms for 2 May symposium: “Measurements of the variations of the Sun”, 2 May 1925 (Abbot Papers, SI Archives).

On Abbot's character, see Oral Wetmore Alexander History, 18 April/8 May 1974, 32, and Oral Oehser Paul History, December 1974–March 1975, 108–9 (SI Archives).

Abbot C. G. , “Solar variations are real”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society , xvii, no. 12 (December 1936), 347.

Aldrich Loyal B. to Sydney Walter Adams , n.d. (rough draft c. early 1946) (Abbot Papers, SI Archives); original dated 28 March 1946 (Adams Papers, Huntington Library).

Adams Sydney Walter Aldrich L. B. , 20 March 1946 (Adams Papers, Huntington Library). Adams had been asked to serve on the Committee on Future Policies of the Smithsonian, and here asked Aldrich to be frank, wanting to know his plans and needs, and his opinion of Abbot's work. Aldrich replied on 28 March 1946.

There is a substantial literature on how prior expectations influence observations and their interpretation; helpful as background are Kuhn Thomas S. , The structure of scientific revolutions , 2nd edn (Chicago, 1970), chap. 7, “The response to crisis”, and a reprint of the classic by Ludwik Fleck , Genesis and development of a scientific fact (Chicago, 1979). Useful to the present study is Smith Robert W. Richard Baum , “William Lassell and the Ring of Neptune: A case study in instrument failure”, Journal for the history of astronomy , xv (1984), 1–17, as well as Austin R. H. , “Uranus observed”, The British journal for the history of science , iii (1967), 275–84, and the work of Singer G. , Variables in suggestibility (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney) cited therein, p. 284. Other useful works treating astronomical preconception are Graves William Hoyt , Lowell and Mars (Tucson, 1976) and DeVorkin D. H. , “W. W. Campbell's spectroscopic study of the Martian atmosphere”, Quarterly journal of the Royal Astronomical Society , xviii (1977), 37–53.

On the career of Douglass A. E. , see Webb George E. , Tree rings and telescopes: The scientific career of A. E. Douglass (Arizona, 1983). Although there is curiously little preserved contact between Douglass and Abbot, the former harboured quiet criticism of the latter's statistics, but apparently never discussed it publicly or explicitly. See “Abbot analysis checks, May 1932”, Box 104, and “ Abbot's radiation measures 1936”, Box 105, Douglass A. E. Papers, University of Arizona Special Collections (hereinafter called UA). A critical datum in Douglass's researches was tree ring measures from beams in prehistoric American Indian buildings. Access to these required the endorsement of the Smithsonian and Abbot. See Grosvenor Gilbert H. Douglass A. E. , 24 April 1929 (Box 77, Douglass A. E. Papers, UA). Correspondence with Douglass preserved in Abbot's papers reveals that the two remained polite and mutually supportive, but distant. Abbot on several occasions wished to remind Douglass that the “correlation shown between tree growth and solar phenomena strengthens the view which Clayton has long held …”, Abbot Douglass A. E. , 29 January 1937 (Box 8, folder 18, Abbot Papers SI).

For an interesting case study of how a scientist's professional standing influences the acceptance of his work, especially when it is an observational work that is difficult to replicate, see Collins Harry M. , “The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics”, Sociology , ix (1975), 205–24, and “Son of seven sexes: The social destruction of a physical phenomenon”, Social studies of science , xi (1981), 33–62. These have been combined in his Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice (London, 1985), chap. 4, “Detecting gravitational radiation”.

Jones , op. cit. (ref. 1), 206–7.

Although his relations with Douglass were curiously minimal, on at least one occasion Douglass needed Abbot's approval to pursue one important phase of his research. See Webb , op. cit. (ref. 22). Abbot was also made a member of various NRC funding panels by his astronomical friends, and by virtue of his position as Smithsonian Secretary was a member of the Board of Directors of the Research Corporation of New York. See National Research Fund folder, Russell Norris Henry Papers, Princeton University Library.

Jones , op. cit. (ref. 1), 215.

Networking in scientific Washington in the period between the wars warrants further study, and Walcott C. D. , Abbot and the Smithsonian may well be excellent case studies. For example, as Dupree Hunter A. notes, Walcott, with Hale and Millikan , were members of the “alliance of influential scientists from government, universities, foundations, and industry” that framed the wartime and postwar character of the National Research Council. See Dupree Hunter A. , Science in the Federal Government (Baltimore, 1986), 327. Although later in the 1920s these alliances failed to aid the Smithsonian Institution overall in its campaign for increased endowments, they still provided intimate access for members of the Smithsonian staff such as Abbot to pursue more focused goals. For a flavour of Abbot's professional friendships, and his networking style in scientific Washington, see Abbot , op. cit. (ref. 1), chap. 6, “Associations with great men” and chap. 7, “Uncommon experiences”. On his longtime friendships with Hale Campbell respectively, see Abbot , ibid. ; Helen Wright , Explorer of the universe (New York, 1966); and DeVorkin , op. cit. (ref. 21), 44.

Fowler (ed.), Transactions of the International Astronomical Union , i, 161. Deslandres was also director of Meudon, and coincidentally a Commission 10 member.

Fragment from Papers Abbot , “endorsements”. The IAU Transactions record that a resolution of this sort was discussed ( ibid. , 160).

Department of Terrestrial Magnetism scientists worked closely with SAO staff, correlating solar phenomena such as sunspot numbers and the solar constant with magnetic records. See DTM folder 1921–1945, Box 8, Papers Abbot , SI.

“Symposium on climatic cycles”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , xix, no. 3 (March 1933).

Ibid. , 386.

Ibid. , 386.

Ibid. , 388.

In a later oral history, taken at age 101, one of Abbot's clearest recollections was how Langley promoted the practical importance of what the SAO was doing, and how Congress responded to that. Abbot recollected that “Langley … hoped that the Astrophysical Observatory might justify its support by discovering such solar changes and their cause … by their predictions … of events” ( Oral Abbot History, October 1973, 20–24, p. 24, SI Archives).

Abbot C. G. , “What's the weather — next year?”, Business digest , i, no. 4 (April 1937), 7–9, p. 7. Reprinted from The Rotarian, n.d.

Oehser Paul H. , The Smithsonian Institution (New York, 1970), 60. Abbot retained his preoccupation with the needs of the SAO even as Secretary, leaving the running of the institution to others. Indeed, he inherited and certainly assumed the Smithsonian tradition wherein its Secretaries were allowed to maintain active research programs. Although he followed tradition, he carried it farther than others had before him, to the point of leaving the running of the institution to his subordinates. At times this included delegation of budget planning and its defence before Congress. Correspondence between Wetmore Alexander , Abbot's Assistant Secretary, and Abbot in the late 1920s and 1930s bears this out. See Alexander Wetmore Oral History, 18 April 1974, 15, and letters, Wetmore to Abbot, 17 September 1927, 8 September 1928 and 21 August 1934 (Box 197, Wetmore folder, Abbot Papers, SI Archives). See also oral history: Modell Watson Perrygo , 55; Stewart Dale T. , January-May 1975, 121; Taylor Frank A. , January-February 1974, p. iii; Herbert Friedmann , April 1975, 66 (all in SI Archives).

One sideline directly related to Abbot's solar constant work was his establishment of the Smithsonian Division of Radiation and Organisms in 1929, with Research Corporation support. This Division studied the growth of plant life under controlled conditions to assess the influence of variations in solar radiation and climate. The Division collaborated with the Department of Agriculture, and subsequently was supported by government contracts, becoming the Smithsonian Radiation Biology Laboratory in 1965. By virtue of his position as Smithsonian Secretary, Abbot coincidentally was a member of the board of directors of the Research Corporation, from 1928 through 1945.

Abbot's spectrobolometry, based upon devices he designed and used at Wilson Mt , gained the admiration of Hale Sydney Walter Adams Norris Henry Russell . In 1944, Abbot recalled to Adams that Russell advised that he concentrate on spectrobolometry: “Perhaps this is now superfluous, but some years ago Russell wrote me that he thought it the most worthwhile thing I could do. I disagreed then, thinking the relations of solar variation to weather more pressing” ( Abbot C. G. Adams W. S. , 26 September 1944 ( Papers Adams , Huntington Library)).

Abbot's focus on problems that would benefit humanity may be a reflection of Walcott's Charles philosophy, as well as Langley's. Walcott once argued that science “on the part of the Government should be limited to nearly utilitarian purposes evidently for the general welfare” ( Walcott C. D. to Roosevelt T. , 20 July 1903, quoted in Dupree, op. cit. (ref. 27), 296). Dupree has also pointed out that with the rise of the great Carnegie and Rockefeller endowments at the turn of the century, the once great Smithsonian had to turn to specialization for survival: “For such small means to make a measurable impression on the course of scientific research required ever more difficult selectivity in the choice of objectives” ( Dupree , op. cit. (ref. 27), 284). On Smithsonian's lagging position funding science, see also Dupree , ibid. , 335, and on the tradition of government research as applied research, see Miller Howard S. , Dollars for research (Seattle, 1970), 177.

Jones , op. cit. (ref. 1), 231–2. Abbot's effectiveness in lobbying Congress requires further investigation. One senator, Bankhead J. H. of Alabama, a leader in Congress on cotton legislation, pumped Abbot for precipitation predictions for the cotton crop between 1934 and 1938. Abbot's pronouncements had attracted the senator's interest during this time, but when confronted by him he held him in check by claiming that “I do not feel that we are as yet warranted in attracting unlimited confidence to these predictions promising as they seem”. It is not known how promising they were to Bankhead, who also sat on the Appropriations Committee that ultimately would have to pass on Abbot's requests. See Abbot Bankhead J. H. , 18 September 1934 (Box 192, folder B, Abbot Papers, SI Archives).

Abbot , op. cit. (ref. 36), 7; Roosevelt Franklin D. Abbot , 1 December 1939 (Box 195, folder R); Photograph folder “Famous persons” (Abbot Papers, SI Archives).

How observatory programs changed in the United States during Abbot's tenure (prior to World War II) requires further study. Some, such as the Yerkes Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory, were quick to add expertise in theoretical astrophysics, and to promote major expansions into new fields of investigation. Others, such as Wilson Mt , concentrated more on observational technique, while others, such as the Lick Observatory, changed very little. See Donald E. Osterbrock John R. Gustafson Unruh Shiloh W. J. , Eye on the sky: Lick Observatory's first century (Berkeley, 1988); DeVorkin David H. , “An astronomer responds to war: Otto Struve and the Yerkes Observatory during World War II”, Minerva , xviii, no. 4 (Winter 1980), 595–623.

On Aldrich's fate, see Ron Doel , “Redefining a mission: The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory on the move”, below, pp. 137–53. Aldrich maintained Abbot's programs, quietly letting Abbot continue to emphasize weather prediction, while he turned to another of Abbot's perceived fruits of the SAO's astronomical labours — the practical utilization of solar energy — to gain continuing support for the SAO. See, for instance, letters, Aldrich L. B. Wetmore A. , July-September 1951, and “Discussion of APO Program, July 10, 1951” (Box 4, Budget folder, 1952, Abbot Papers, SI Archives; APO refers to the Astrophysical Observatory, see comment in ref. 1 above).

“Requests for aid and data …”, Box 4, Budget folder, 1952, Abbot Papers, SI Archives. As Aldrich looked to the future, he correctly predicted in the late 1940s how improvements would probably come:

The observatory's continuing record of solar radiation is unique. No other organization is carrying on a similar study. Looking ahead, the dominating object should be to continue as completely and accurately as possible this record of the nature and amount of solar radiation outside the earth's atmosphere. This goal should contemplate the possible substitution of free balloon or rocket automatically recorded observations as rapidly as proper instruments can be developed, in place of the difficult and costly observations at high altitudes. From the direct knowledge of the sun's emission spectrum thus obtained, more accurate evaluation of the losses in our atmosphere will result ( Aldrich L. B. , “The Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution”, 4–5, n.d. (c. late 1940s), Box 11, Abbot Papers, SI Archives).

op. cit. (ref. 9).