That question remains open and while I believe 2013 will catch up - I wouldn't put any significant amount of money on that belief.
You put your finger on the pulse of things with this, ktonine.
The problem is one of volatility. And I think that volatility has its root in two things. (1) the catastrophic (in geological terms) reduction in MYI area, and (2) the corresponding over-all increase in energy being absorbed seasonally.
(1) is the buffer. In previous years, there were many times when you would see unusually warm conditions, and there would be sharp anomalies; however, the ability of the system to buffer these fluctuations was much higher. While trivial in size compared to the Antarctic sheets, Arctic ice (in particular, MYI) still presented a huge seasonal energy repository. The loss in any given year was fractionally a far smaller part of the systems total budget. You need only look to the decline of seasonal minimum extent to see this. In 1979, that number was upwards of 9 million square kilometers. In 2012, it was under 4. The actual surviving MYI was about 2/3 of that value.
(2) provides the volatility. With less of a reserve, relatively small variations in heat input will have proportionally greater effect. Thus, with thinner ice, more widely dispersed, local weather and sea water temperature changes can and do have more dramatic results, both positive and negative. Last winter's "re-freeze" is a case in point - more new ice was created than previously recorded in any year on record. While WUWT and others are quick to use that as evidence of recovery, it in fact is very, VERY disturbing evidence supporting the exact opposite.
So, to summarize - as you point out, considering current conditions and trying to predict what the Arctic is about to do, even the smartest of us are whistling in the dark. We're looking at a candle in a breeze, and wondering just how hard it will blow.