... then they start talking about km^2 of lost surface area. Which if you read the paper they cite, it says "Between 1984 and 2015 permanent surface water has disappeared from an area of almost 90,000 square kilometres, roughly equivalent to that of Lake Superior, though new permanent bodies of surface water covering 184,000 square kilometres have formed elsewhere." On top of that, shallow lakes fluctuate wildly in surface area. The great Salt Lake for example. VS Lake Tahoe which can drop 10 ft and the surface area loss is tiny.

Yes of course the relationship between volume and area depends on the lake depth, are you suggesting the paper implied anything else? The Great Salt Lake has dropped rather dramatically in the last ten years, so much so that it has already changed pretty much all recreation and commercial activity on the lake - the primary boat dock closed because the marina was completely dry and by last year the shores had moved inward, by kilometers in some cases. Unusual precipitation this year has brought levels up a little, but this might only be a blip in the downward trend. The known reasons include drought conditions, unusually high temperatures, and greater upstream use. The Great Salt Lake’s recent history very much backs up the claims of this paper, no?