* The medieval warm period was warmed than today, which is false; thus
* Solar activity might be the cause of large climate changes, which is doubtful, more so because the premise is wrong.
Not enough to explain ocean acidity, why climate change is global, why there's a hole in the Antarctic's atmosphere...
You must have me confused with someone who doesn't know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic.
The raw data on Arctic ice thickness comes from the Canadian Ice Service, Norwegian Meteorological Service
daily satellite images: Arctic Mosaic of the LANCE-MODIS System, University of Bremen archive of sea ice concentration maps, ECMWF weather forecasts and radar images of Greenland from the Danish Meteorological Institute. So satellite photos basically, and you are right that I don't consider them propaganda.
I haven't looked at the data behind the articles you cite since they aren't available as best I can find, and even the summaries merely claim that Antarctica is at best a wash with gains in one metric in one region possibly compensating for significant losses elsewhere. Thanks for playing though.
"the medieval warm period was warme[r] than today, which is false"
Why is that false?
There are many possible explanations for the latter anomalies - our CO2 output likely is part of influence, but hardly the only. Global temperatures, ocean acidity, and the ozone layer have all fluctuated dramatically over time, even long before humans existed. In fact, in the Archaean period and earlier, earth did not even have an ozone layer.
Here is a better link: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm