not sure on the blue dots.. no legend that I could see for the graph.
Apparently, the graph represents a change in ice mass, not absolute mass. (You can't have negative ice, can you?) What would be more meaningful would be a graph of total ice mass, but that would tend to make the fluctuations appear less dramatic. It looks to me like the ice mass bottomed out in early 2004 and is now increasing. But, making any judgments of geologic processes based on a three year slice makes as much sense as predicting the stock market on the basis of a single day's activity.