Probably nothing, but struck me as interesting, given what happened in 2012!
Possibly related observation about 2012 -
By filtering out long-term CO2 driven trend, ENSO (El Nino), Solar cycle, and Aerosol values, it is possible to remove a large portion of the year to year variation in annual average NASA GISS temperature for every one of the past 11 years except for 2012. But the "model" fails miserably for predicting the difference between 2012 and 2011. The only other year with a negative correlation between the model estimate and observed value also involves 2012 - the difference between 2013 and 2012.
So for reasons unknown to me (BTW - I'm not a climate scientist, just another ASIF onlooker hanging around the scene of the crime), 2012 was an oddball year with respect to a robust pattern that applies quite strongly to every other of the 11 years in 2009-2019.
Of course, for the Arctic Ocean we have the great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012 to explain why Extent tanked that year. Worth noting that
a) the ASI low Volume record set in 2012 is much less extreme than the Extent record, and
b) Extent and Volume recovered rather quickly.
Thus it seems that while 2012 remains an epic event in recent ASI history, it was largely a short-term disturbance that brought submerged heat to the surface and created a drastic but short-lived effect on Extent. That loss of heat energy led to a pseudo-recovery over the following years.
In comparison, while 2019 did not break the 2012 record, it shows a broader impact of continued warming in the condition of the remaining ice that is thinner, saltier, and less resistant to melt; has lost virtually all of the thickest multi-year "anchor" ice; and reflects a system that has been functionally altered (e.g. loss of Beaufort Gyre nursery).
While some idiot with bad hair might claim that "Hey, there's more September Arctic sea ice now than there was 7 years ago, what's the problem?", the situation is actually much more dire than a simple accounting of Extent or Area, or even the more informative Thickness and Volume, indicate. The ASI is like a termite-riddled wooden beam. The surface appearance does not fully indicate the structural weakness within.
I suspect that the next Arctic Cyclone with similar storm energy as the 2012 event will cause even more dramatic damage than 2012 because it will be interacting with a thinner and more fractured ice pack, will have longer wind fetch for wave generation from more open water, and have much higher levels of submerged heat energy to bring up. In addition to all that, the probability of a storm as strong or stronger than 2012 increases with the continued warming of Arctic ocean water, more frequent and intense incursions of warm air masses, increasing Arctic humidity, weakening of the polar jet, Atlantification etc.
All amateur speculation of course, by someone who knows just enough to be emphatically wrong, but hey my GISS model works (except for 2012)!
PS Lest you think I exaggerate the potential correlation between bad hair and stupidity, one such person recently tweeted that New York City should get ready with mops and buckets instead of considering an expensive public works infrastructure project to reduce risk from rising sea level.