Will Arctic sea ice extent shrink to a new record minimum in 2008?

http://www.hubdub.com/m10139/Will_the_North_Pole_be_ice_free_at_any_point_in_2008

Related market, has my comments. Arctic has more ice than average at present.

The argument is not sensical. There is more young ice because last year was the record melting, this past winter saw the coldest temps since the 1870's so a lot more new ice formed than usual, so much so that even Svalbard is reporting massive ice in the area when its normally ice free in that area this time of year.

Latest satellite images show lots of ice persisting into the end of July, more so than in past years.

This question, like a number of them, is not well posed. The question asks "Will Arctic sea ice extent shrink to a new record minimum in 2008?", but then the question suspends in a week. This is before the minimum occurs, and the site for the solution is dependent upon a forecast model, not the actual data!

So, who knows how the answer will be settled?

@bk: this is why I added nsidc.org as a source of data for settlement. NSIDC will post their calculation (based on data) of the areal extent of sea ice and will announce a date when they judge it had reached minimum area. If CatEd wishes to extend suspension date, I have no problem with that.

I've changed the settlement date to the end of the year, although of course if the ice hits a new low before the end of the year it will be settled then.

I think the site being proposed for the settlement source is quite clear, and it does have forecast models but the actual graphs updated on the site are the recorded data. So this is the information that can be used to potentially settle the question.

Finally, this question is not an argument about whether loss of ice means is due to climate change, but is a factual question based on a clear data source.

One issue I have with the settlement source is the information they've been putting out has been not reflecting reality. Arctic Ice Cover has been running 30% greater than last summer this time, but Colorado is only claiming 10%, a significant discrepancy. I would dispute using this settlement source as credible.