Climate science seems to work on the principle of “let’s find an explanation which kinda sorta makes sense if you don’t think about it, and then blame (whatever it is) on CO2.”
A classic example is Hansen’s claim about the current cold in Europe.
Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw.
His explanation doesn’t work. Last winter showed the same weather pattern – yet sea ice extent was the highest in years – and had the latest peak on record.
Another related claim is dodgy.
The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November
Once again, the high temperature anomaly over Northeast Canada persisted all winter, long after Hudson Bay froze over. The anomaly was due to the record low Arctic Oscillation. How is it that the world’s greatest climatologist is unaware of this fundamental principle?
And there were a lot of of peak ice years where Hudson Bay wasn’t frozen over in November. Standards in the climate science community are low – beyond comprehension.