If we are being honest the only thing Michael Hauber has proven is that he cares a lot more about "OPTICS" than he does about the environment or in this case three cryosphe.
The mind set of SOMEONE who DEMONSTRATES that they see a DIPOLE anomaly as better for the ice than a REVERSE DIPOLE that is ridge DOMINANT so it brings great heat from the Eurasian interior and bombards it poleward past the KONTENENTIAL SHELF but does not PENETRATE into the CAB leaving the only important ICE left well PROTECTED.
This guy Michael Hauber cares so much about "OPTICS" that IN HIS MIND A DIPOLE ANOMALY IS BETTER FOR THE ICE THAN A REVERSE DIPOLE BECAUSE MYI IS HARDER TO MELT BUT THE FYI MIGHT SURVIVE LONGER NOW???
WHILE THE MYI WHICH WAS LIKELY SEEING ALMOST NO MELT IS NOW GOING TO SEE SUNSTAINSIAL MELT.
JUST GOING OFF SO FAR AND THE DATA/FORECASTS WE HAVE THIS PATTERN CHANGE WILL COST THE MYI 25 PERCECT OF IT'S THICKNESS MINIMUM. BUT THAT WILL LIKELY BE CLOSER TO 50 PERCENT OR MORE.
But in Michael Haubers mind now there is a chance SOME/MORE FYI survives?
Which COULD PREVENT A NEW RECORD LOW IN EXTENT/AREA OR EVEN PREVENT A TOP 3 FINISH?
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LAST VESTIGES OF THE MYI.
SO THIS MIND VALUES THERE NOT BEING A NEW
TWO DIMENSIONAL RECORD LOW AS BETTER FOR THE ARCTIC SEA ICE WHILE LOSING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MYI...
VERSUS A NEW RECORD LOW BUT THE MYI STAYS WELL PROTECTED POTENTIALLY SOMETHING TO BUILD ON.
THOSE TWO DIMENSIONAL OPTICS CAN REALLY MESS WITH A MAN.
Ok, I am done personally addressing Michael Hauber. My apologies.