Did you remember to put your tin foil hat on this morning?
Peter's "Harryhausen hypothesis" is far more plausible.
This is the weather pattern that causes the cooler arctic temperatures in the beginning of the melt seasons of 2013 and 2014.
The pattern is caused by a "ridiculously resilient ridge" of high pressure that formed in the North East Pacific during this time.
It caused increase clouds and decreased temperatures which suppressed melt pond formation in the early season which has been indicated as the primary predictor of end of season sea ice minimum extent and volume.
both 2013 and 2014 exhibited similar patterns, a sharp drop in temperatures below the average on days 128 and around 155 of the year.
The blocking high pressure pattern observed in the North East pacific is much more likely under the scenarios observed under the GeoMIP (Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project)
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/but
since actual geoengineering is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (unable to be ruled out, so a perpetual possibility), it is far more likely that the regional increase in aerosol emissions from southeast asia is producing an analogy to the global dimming CMIP5 model runs found in the GeoMIP analysis. I fly often for work and have observed the relative increase in haze and reflectivity of cloud surfaces above 27,000 feet for several decades now.
That being said,
This is a classic example of why climate scientists operate under a self-censoring bias toward "least drama" (otherwise called "type-I error avoidance bias")
This is because some people function with a middle school mentality and would rather play a game of one-upmanship and assert some kind of false intellectual superiority than let the scientific method operate like it should.
in summary:
I have observed and documented the weather pattern, I have correlated it to the temperature drops, I have used the current body of science to show how it suppresses sea ice loss and how this observed effect mimics the outputs from CMIP5 models run to see what geoengineering would look like.
I included the possibility (of geoengineering) but qualified it as an unfalsifiable hypothesis, with a more likely alternative of simply a function of current aerosol emissions.
your response is the equivalent of a "fart joke"