On the main thread, Daniel B questions whether the ice trend since 2007 is flat. It's a bit OT for that thread so I'll paste it into here, but overall I'm just citing tamino from October 2015, who says that on some measures it might be (but it might also be shrinking, just at a slower rate than the early 2000s), but on other measures it definitely isn't.

The extent trend is very much down, but if you take a chart of just the last 10 years 2007-2016, and just of the extent minima, you will see a relatively flat chart.

So what? That is just plain cherry-picking. Of course you will get a flat trend, if you start in a year with an exceptional low value and use only a short period of time (so that the overall long-term trend will not beat that short-term variation).This is exactly the same as people bragging about that there was no global warming since 1998 or in the last 10-15 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

But those trends are not statistically significant, not even close. There is nothing you can get out of such an "analysis". The only thing you see is short-term variation. If you just include 2006 in your time-span, the trend is already strongly downward, so if you have such a dramatic change by just including one more data point, you certainly know, that you have to included to few data points in the first place.

By your method the entire satellite trend is not statistically significant. That does not mean that it does not exist. Look at your graph. This highest data point was 1996, and the lowest was 2012. Can you confidently say that the entire graph shows a linear decline? Longer-term data sets show that the extend in 1996 was not too different from that 60 years prior.

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c809c471970b-pi

This is Tamino's post that I was thinking of (among the dozen or two other posts he's done on sea ice):

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/arctic-sea-ice-2/This is two years old; it'd be interesting to see with 1-2 years of extra data.

On annual average extent, he finds that it collapsed 2003-2007, then went back to a rate that's simultaneously indistinguishable from zero AND indistinguishable from the statistically significant rate in the earlier part of the record. So Tamino does see statistical support for a change in trend occurring in 2007.

On annual minimum, he finds a change point in the mid-90s, but not recently. He notes this data is noisier and a smooth does suggest that maybe there's a change point more recently, but you'd need more years before you could be sure (I'm not sure if one more year is enough).

On annual maximum, he finds no support for any change in trend.

In all cases, the trend is down.

I note that Neven frequently posts his volume graph, which looks pretty much like a straight line down. It's not mathematically possible for all of area, volume, and thickness to all be linear trends down, except that every curve looks linear if you focus in close enough.