"Why disparade": i didn't "disparade" it. Merely discussed how precise/imprecise the method is and will be in the future in my personal opinion. I dare hope that discussing precision of scientific methods helps to use such methods in a most useful and appropriate way.
"One of the best methods we have": yes, it is. But not because it's so precise - but because other methods are similarly imprecise. Noone's fault. Arctic (and climate in general) are things vast and complex.
"Parameters will be tweaked": suuure. But how well? Presently, past observations help with that much. In a significantly new mode of summer melt, this won't be the case. I've seen how "parameters are tweaked" time and time again when the speed of melt of glaciers and ice caps were "re-estimated" again and again (and/or predictions for how big sea level rise will be by 2100, which is directly related), each time it was said "yeah, this time we got it rather correctly, here's 95% confidence internal, we know what mistake we did last time, now it gotta be correct". Gets old when it's done 3rd time, you know.
"I don't see any reason": ok, no problem. I see, but you don't. It's not impossible that i am "hallucinating" - seeing things which are not existing. I respectfully agree to disagree... sir.
"Why is it such a good prediction this year?" - i think you've seen some of my posts about aerosols, welsbach seeding, my reasons to suspect significantly large geo-engineering in Arctic. I expected much bigger melt this year than what we see now. I can't prove any geo-engineering in the Arctic, of course (and if i could - would i, even in such relatively low-profile but still _public_ place as this one?). But in the same time, i don't think you can prove that intentional and large enough to substantially change annunal minimum ice area/extent geo-engineering project in Arctic is NOT happening since 2013 (continuing this year), eh?
The only one thing i can add - is this: look at CT area numbers during recent weeks. You'll see near-halt of the melt (in terms of sea ice area, of course): year 2014, day 215 = 4,65 MKm2, year 2014 day 229 = 4,53 MKm2. Two weeks of august with average (during this period) daily loss of sea ice area being 0,0085 MKm2 (i.e., mere 8,5k - 8500Km2 / day). But the truly unusual thing about it - is not the rate itself, but continuation of intense melt _after_ such a near-halt. 2013 had similar period of relatively-constant sea ice area during august with continuation of rapid decrease afterwards. This feature is something new; during previous years (1979...2012), i don't remember any single "temporary stop" for some 10...14 days of late-summer melt which then turns into still massive and rapid further decrease of Arctic ice area. And while i can suspect that such a "new behaviour" was caused by highly unusual weather during a single year (say, 2013), - it's much more difficult to seriously consider that we now have 2 "highly unusual weather" years in a row, while during 1979...2012 period we didn't have a single "same kind of highly unusually weather" year at all.
"That in itself would be useful information": oh, i agree. Exactly one of reasons i wrote the previous post, and exactly what i was talking about in the 1st paragraph of this one, you see. You see, right?
"Can you do better": i probably could - with proper data and sufficient computing power and staff, which are things which i do not have at this time. Thus in practice, i can't right now. All i can is to express my opinion about some things which - i hope noone would argue, - influence the usefulness of the method in question. I hope it's not a crime.
