Time to go on the record: Is this going to be the year?

[CRH]

9. Agreed, I think between 2.25 and 2 million sq/km ...

and it has been the pattern that years after big melt have been slower.

You have a good background in science, maybe you can help. Is the logic in the following correct, or no.

For me the PIOMAS km3 (volume) is more important, because it is a more accurate determination of old ice. The elevating temperatures of arctic water can reduce the volume at a faster rate than the decline of extent. Cloudy days might hinder a rapid loss of extent, but below the water surface the rate of ice failure might actually increase. The two measurements might not be in proportion. -- Less ice volume represents more existing temperature than might be represented by ice extent. Once the ice fails, with it the thermal inertia decreases and more rapid increase in water temperature will happen, not just from albedo, but the physics as well. Is this accurate?