Um...
Decrease in antarctic ice cover:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
I am usually suspicious of articles that quote the results of the 'latest studies' without providing any way of checking said studies. YMMV.
In any case, it seems unequivocal that the north polar ice sheets are retreating rapidly. One would expect the sheer thermal inertia of the antarctic ice sheet to slow down any melting processes in that region.
One explanation, completely removed from the Greenhouse Effect, is that the increase in atmospheric pollution since the Industrial Revolution in Europe has decreased the albedo of the ice sheet. Dirty ice heats up faster in the sun, so melts more efficiently. Since ice cores have been used to measure atmospheric pollution, the muck is obviously there, and even a tiny increase in heat absorption would send the snowline North fairly quickly. As the glaciers flow, the dirty layer gets thicker and thicker, until 200 year old ice bottoms out. The effect would be greatest in the Northern Hemisphere, which seems to be the case, and in areas along the prevailing winds from industrialised areas, which from the the very little research I've done seems to be the case too.
Dirty ice is so very unromantic, though.
Believe it or not, one of the anti-Greenhouse schemes involved carpet bombing the open oceans with trace nutrients like chelated iron. By and large, the oceans are deserts, not enough essential minerals to support lots of plankton. Increasing nutrients should result in algae explosions, which fix lots of carbon and then sink. The by-products (more fish) should be useful, too.
