those are claims as well no evidence. we can gladly exchange claims and reason by finding flaws in the other's reasoning which is what i try but you come back trying to proof my reasoning wrong with the data i question, so much about repetition 
I'm not sure what sort of evidence you would ask for. There are several major scientific operations that produce thickness data. We know that it's not perfect data, but it is hell of a lot better than writing long lists about what you think things should be.
Graphs can easily be found all over this forum if you want to check them, but I thought I might just go over your points one by one from an earlier post:
- most of the 5m thick ice gone = a lot of volume gone since thickness is a key factor of volume
Looking at the
Polar Portal map for today and same date 2012 shows that there is no 5m ice either year. Actually, in 2012 there was hardly any ice thicker than 3.5 meters on this date, while this year there are small areas of 4m thick ice, and the ice is thicker generally than on the same date 2012.
- almost year round above average temps and similar extents (small differences) let's me ask, when and where should all that supposedly thicker ice have been built? and since the last 2 winters were similarly warm even more so.
A fair point. Yes, winter temperatures have been going up these last few years and many expected volume to fall because of this. And sure enough, winter volume has been falling these last few years, and was especially low last year. But again looking on Polar Portal, the main difference seems to be in winter extent, which is also significantly lower this year than 2012.
So with less volume, but also less extent, the thickness this winter was more than in 2012 as can be seen on
Neven's thickness graph.
Although I'm no expert, I seem to remember a discussion on how ice forms, and why the warmer winter temperatures wont have any major effect on ice thickness. Essentially, it's bloody cold up there, and once freezing starts, thickness grows very quickly to begin with. The last few tens of centimeters take a lot longer, and it's there that slightly warmer temperatures might have an effect.
- i take the lowest extent in 2012 and the thickness of the remaining ice as a starting point all the ice from there onward was one or two year ice, none of them survived the 3 year after that ( ice drift has to be considered here, the ice over the pole in 2012 is now mostly gone, exported and melted.)
No, this is not valid. At the 2012 minimum there was quite a bit of second, third, fourth year and older ice still remaining. Yes, all the ice that formed in 2012 is presumably gone by now, but that is neither here nor there.
- since there is no reason to believe that during warm winters with ever less maximum extent, hence more humid air masses and closing in waterfronts, ice could have significantly grown in thickness as compared to earlier years.
Well, again this doesn't really hold. The "significant" part of ice thickness growth happens quickly, and even if the temperatures are not quite as cold as usual, they are easily cold enough to get the first, significant, bit of thickness in place. And starting a sentence with "no reason to believe" is not promising for what follows. It essentially means "I believe it, but I don't have any evidence".
- i think a lot of that thickness is snow of which due to raised humidity is probably more and i can't see how to reliably distinguish ice from snow form the air. it's one of the several changes in conditions that the algorithms currently don't cope with because they're from times when conditions were different and much easier to calculate.
Yes, others have also talked about the possibility that snow is fooling the sensors. And I'm sure they are. It does seem to snow more in the northern regions now than it used to. But there are very few direct measurements. A-Team has written extensively about this and what evidence there is seems to show not more than ankle-deep snow on average if I remember correctly.
The arctic ocean itself doesn't receive that much snowfall, it's mostly dry. And if snow does arrive, it would usually come up the North-Atlantic, hitting Svalbard before moving in over the ice. We do have direct
measurement of snowfall at Longyearbyen in Svalbard, and this last winter the maximum snow depth was 12 cm.
So, yes, it does snow, and snow does disturb the models and satellite measurements, but it doesn't really seem to be in any significant amounts.
- even extent/area that are probably part of the calculations are currently not reliable, hence we have questionable thickness and questionable two-dimensional data which all together leave a lot of room for doubts and questioning.
Well, I'm not sure how to answer that. Extent and area are measured directly all year round, how can they not be reliable?
