National Climatic Data Center /NCEI director Tom Karl resigns

From the one less bureaucrat department and NCDC/NCEI comes this press release:

Tom Karl Retires After Nearly 41 Years of Service

Photo of NCEI Director Tom Karl

NCEI Director Tom Karl announces his retirement.

After nearly 41 years, Tom Karl, NCEI’s Director, is retiring from Federal service. He’s come a long way from his first job as an 11 year old handing out advertisements for a TV repairman on Saturday mornings. But, he’s ready to transition into a new phase of his life. “I’m looking forward to slowing things down and taking some time to relax,” said Tom. “And, I won’t have to worry about staying up too late watching football,” he continued with a smile.

Even though Tom is now looking forward to relaxing, the passion for science he developed as a young man remains deeply rooted in him. In the early days of his childhood, Tom had his heart set on becoming a weather forecaster. And, he continued that educational path into college, obtaining his bachelor’s degree from Northern Illinois University and his master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin—both in meteorology.

After completing his master’s degree, Tom was ready to embark on a new phase in his career. He applied for several positions across the country, including one at what was then the Environmental Research Lab in Raleigh, North Carolina. With no word back from the Lab after several weeks, Tom moved to Norman, Oklahoma, and prepared to begin a PhD program and work as a teaching assistant at the University of Oklahoma. Then, a week before his first semester was set to begin, the Environmental Research Lab offered him a position.

“I think the overwhelming Oklahoma heat was what really led to my final decision,” Tom recalled of his decision to move to Raleigh. But, he was certain he’d made the right decision as he began researching the interactions of air pollution with Earth’s climate under his first boss, George Holzworth. “George pushed me to publish a lot of papers early on,” said Tom. “He was instrumental in helping me learn to better communicate my science.”

As much as Tom enjoyed climate and research, he still wanted to fulfill his childhood dream of becoming a weather forecaster. So, he took advantage of working for NOAA and found a job doing just that with the National Weather Service Office in Anchorage, Alaska. But, Tom found that rotating shifts weren’t for him, and he began to search for other opportunities.

Finally, in 1980, Tom found what he was looking for in the National Climate Center in Asheville, North Carolina. Since then, the National Climate Center transformed into the National Climatic Data Center. Throughout that time, Tom also worked his way up from a researcher to a Lab Chief to Senior Scientist to Director of the Center. And, when the National Climatic Data Center merged with its sister Data Centers in 2015, Tom took on the responsibility of serving as NCEI’s first Director and shepherding the former organizations through the transition period.

Of all of his accomplishments during his tenure, Tom reflects most fondly on some of the “ah ha” moments throughout his career. “It was great to use science to discover something we hadn’t realized before,” Tom said. “And, it was really rewarding to work with so many brilliant people toward a cause as rewarding as NOAA’s—helping protect lives and property and living marine resources.”

As Tom goes on to new adventures, he hopes that NCEI will continue to build off its strengths of providing authoritative data and information and being experts on what’s possible with that data. “We’ve built a great reputation from the standpoint of providing stewardship, science, and services,” Tom noted. “And, we’ve got many opportunities to integrate environmental data from different disciplines to help solve some really complex problems. What we’ve done and what NCEI will continue to do is really positive for the country and the world, and that’s worth quite a bit.”

Tom would like to thank all of NCEI’s employees for their dedication and hard work. He would also like to extend a special thanks to all those who encouraged and influenced him throughout his career.

We appreciate Tom’s many years of service at NOAA and wish him the best of luck in the future!


What this means is that Tom Peterson will likely succeed Karl as director, and Peterson is a rabid warmist, and holds the keys to the entire GHCN dataset and the WMO climate program. He was also a co-author (likely the one who did all the work since Karl is a policy wonk and not much of a scientist) in that sleight of hand that they pulled last year in adjusting past sea-surface temperatures in a  highly criticized paper that made the slope of warmer higher. These two are so smug, they refused a congressional subpoena last year looking into the issue

If Peterson gets the nod, you can expect NCDC/NCEI to become even more alarmist and data adjusting than they are now.

UPDATE: Apparently I’m in error. Zeke notes in comments that Tom Peterson retired from NCDC last year in July 2015. I regret the error, but was unaware.

UPDATE2: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Notes in comments:

My experience with Tom Peterson in the last few years has not been pleasant. I will document some of them in this comment. Tom and I used to get along fine at CSU and I enjoyed my discussions with him. Somehow, this climate issue [has] distorted his objectivity and collegiality.

My largest concern is that when I was on the CCSP 1.1 committee (with Tom Karl as Chair) which was evaluating the surface and tropospheric temperature data trend analyses, Tom Peterson communicated to others, including members of the committee, behind my back. His comments were insulting. I only found out due to the Climategate e-mails. For a federal manager/employee to involve themselves so as to skew a report compromises the objectivity of such reports.

Here is some of the record on my experience (excerpts and links to where they came from)

1. https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/tom-peterson-of-ncdc-and-climate-science-baloney/

“At 18:12 13/03/2008, Thomas C Peterson wrote:

Hi, David,

My first thought is well, we’ll just have to cut it way back. Then I pulled out Pielke’s paper and saw that mountain of baloney and thought where do we draw the line?

There is so much there that should be refuted.

To be pithy, we could just hit the central points with little elaboration:

1. Definition of global temperature (a) Roger gives a definition related heat content and climate feedback. We give this definition: the average temperature of the earth.”

“Conclusion: Roger is full of baloney.

There you go, David. Add in a few references and we have a paper!

Regards,

REDACTED Tom”

2. https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/comment-on-the-post-enemies-caught-in-action-on-the-blackboard/

“From: “thomas.c.peterson” To: Phil Jones Subject: [Fwd: Marooned?] Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:10:02 -0500

Hi, Phil,

I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related commentary below.

I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us. It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn’t know how different parts were put together. During the question part, Bob Livzey said, if you don’t know how it is done you should read the papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.

Warm regards,

Tom”

3. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/enemies-caught-in-action/ {see Cartoon which ridicules me and others]. This behaviour would never have been known except for the hacking to obtain the Climategate e-mails.

Tom Peterson never apologized for this.

Thus, if he becomes head of NCDC, I assume he will continue to denigrate, behind their backs, those who disagree with him, but now in an even more senior position.

Roger Sr.

P.S. The CCSP 1.1 report was thus a biased assessment. I discuss this, for example, in

Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nr-143.pdf

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
gallopingcamel
August 3, 2016 9:03 pm

The NCDC is beyond any hope of reform so let’s hope Donald Trump is the next president.
Imagine government agencies being asked to do “Zero Based Budgeting” and “Cost/Benefit Analysis”. Many federal agencies are completely useless and others actually harm the prosperity of this nation so they will have difficulty justifying their existence under private sector budgeting standards.
For example, the NCDC is worse than useless…….it does real harm to science and to the economy so I doubt if it could survive a stringent budgeting process. I used to think that NOAA was a few crazy scientists until I met Thomas Peterson in Asheville and found a behemoth:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-1/
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-2/
Karl and Peterson serve politics rather than science or truth.

Roy Spencer
August 4, 2016 4:24 am

Tom Karl was a very personable guy, and the quintessential government manager. The latter observation isn’t necessarily meant as flattery. 😉

Gary
Reply to  Roy Spencer
August 4, 2016 6:22 am

And since “the science is settled” there is much more work to do anyway.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Roy Spencer
August 4, 2016 6:31 am

Who best to carry out orders from above and then to provide public service awards to the team. It’s a chain of command, not bottom up or science process here. The same could be said with the instructions to staff to look the other way on Solyndra financial condition in the grants and loans program at DoE.

bit chilly
Reply to  Roy Spencer
August 6, 2016 10:38 am

there will be much cause fr concern when you retire roy. tom karl, not so much.

Resourceguy
August 4, 2016 6:34 am

Kerry needs a cabin boy. But you may have to ferry plane loads of cash to Iran on occasion.

Paul Johnson
August 4, 2016 6:48 am

Is this position one that requires Congressional approval? If so, it should get stalled until the next, hopefully more competent, administration.

Pamela Gray
August 4, 2016 8:17 am

God help the few that point out misgivings in the senior levels of research. It is one of the main reasons why research continues to cause harm as well as good over the centuries.

RAH
August 4, 2016 9:27 am

Here is a post that Tony over at Real Climate did on Tom Karl August 1st:
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/tom-karl-at-noaa-busts-tom-karl-at-noaa/

August 4, 2016 9:34 am

That is the point of the retirement right now. They can appoint a younger warmist to carry over in the next administration.
Scott

gmischol
August 4, 2016 10:19 am

Well, just walked in the streets today and saw a guy with a t-shirt, where it was written: create the past. It wasn’t Tom Karl but maybe it would fit his work

1sky1
August 4, 2016 4:27 pm

His name will be enshrined forever in the neologism “Karlized data.” But that came years later than “Hansenization” and centuries after pasteurization.

pat michaels
August 4, 2016 5:40 pm

Hey, Tom, I’m pretty sure you’re reading these comments. Some are a bit ad-hom. But I have important questions for you.
You were the science chief for the first (2000) National Assessment. I found that the two models used, the CCM2 and the Met Office one, resulted in a larger residual error AFTER applied to 10-year running means of the global temperature average than what was in the raw data. In other words, they added noise to signal. You wrote back that indeed I was correct
But you went forward. This is EXACTLY like a physician prescribing a treatment that he or she knows will cause more harm than good. It’s unethical, pure and simple. What you did was noticed and created a great distrust of anything out of NCDC.
Why did you do it? Was it worth it?
Pat M.
I saved your job in 2000. You were on a hit list and I had you taken off because I thought you were a straight shooter. Seven months later what is detailed above happened.

Reply to  pat michaels
August 7, 2016 10:50 am

“I saved your job in 2000. You were on a hit list and I had you taken off because I thought you were a straight shooter.”
A hit list, you say? More details please. This window into potential corruption and undue influence on the careers of federal public servants on the part of ‘skeptics’ and contrarians with ties to right-wing lobby groups and Republican politicians could be very interesting.

August 7, 2016 9:48 pm

Sorry Magma, we can’t tell you the inner secrets of the Merchants of Doubt or else we would have to neutralize you as well. (not really. yes really – not…)

Reply to  Ron Graf
August 8, 2016 8:39 am

Have to remember this next time Climategate is referred to.

Reply to  Eli Rabett
August 8, 2016 9:42 pm

Good point. Your side really does have a mafia. I joke is less funny now in that light.

August 8, 2016 1:04 pm
Reply to  Tom Yulsman
August 9, 2016 2:58 pm

Chip is CATO and Michaels. http://www.cato.org/people/chip-knappenberger That’s a two for one

Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 9, 2016 4:22 pm

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might want to defend Tom Yulsman, but Mike McCracken explained the science:

Regarding Pat Michaels’ charge against Tom Karl, Pat made up a test for the models suggesting that to be useful they had to be able to predict the running 5-year average variability through the 20th century; he found that they did not have any skill at doing this so coined the clever phrase that climate models are no more than random number generators. Given the test he chose which has nothing really to do with climate (defined by NOAA as a 30-year average), the models did exactly as expected in that the 5-year variability is dominated by ENSO (with a bit of volcanic response thrown in) and these are not predictable influences. For climate change, per the detection-attribution analyses that are done, one wants to use the slow but accumulating forcing of GHGs and other long-term forcing and look at the multi-decade response. Those of us involved in the meteorological aspects of the National Assessment wrote a peer-reviewed BAMS article to explain all of this (MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003: Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723).

Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 10, 2016 5:20 pm

On Twitter Chip Knappenberger pointed out that Pat Michaels was using a ten year period, and Mike McCracken agreed that it was not five. Principle stands

Gabro
August 9, 2016 4:28 pm

“Service”?
Karl Marx was of more service, and his run was far worse than worthless.