Fan, you claim:
<i>"Yes, the sea-level rise-rate acceleration, in the latter half of the 20th century relative to the first half (that even by eye, is so plainly evident in your cherry-picked data set) is affirmed by recent, larger analyses."</i>
Thanks to science, you don't have to blindly trust your lying eyes.
_________________________________________________________
<a href="http://www.marzeion.info/sites/default/files/gregory_etal_13.pdf" rel="nofollow"> Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?</a>
<i>Confidence in projections of global-mean sea level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the twentieth century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction, and reservoir impoundment.
Progress has been made toward solving the ‘‘enigma’’ of twentieth-century GMSLR, which is that the observed GMSLR has previously been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades.
The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.</i>
________________________________________________________
You also observe:
<i>"Fortunately, SOME folks focus (responsibly) upon the strongest climate-science, rather than irresponsibly upon the weakest climate-science!"</i>
I agree, and fortunately after more than a decade of declaring catastrophic future events based on weak (read preliminary) science; strong climate science is slowly getting back on track towards providing a much-needed context.
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014PA002632/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false" rel="nofollow">Late Holocene sea level variability and Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation</a> (pdf available)
<i>Pre-twentieth century sea level (SL) variability remains poorly understood due to limits of tide gauge records, low temporal resolution of tidal marsh records, and regional anomalies caused by dynamic ocean processes, notably multidecadal changes in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
The multidecadal regional SL anomaly curve provides a unique long-term context for understanding the controversial acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the past few decades.
Rates of 2–4 mm yr1 punctuate the SST-derived SL curve; thus, the regional eastern U.S. rates observed during the last few decades are not necessarily unusual or representative of a long-time average. Regional rapid SLR rates of several cm/yr can occur over several decades, as expected from ocean dynamical and modeling studies.
The hypothesis that late Holocene global SL has been stable [e.g., Bindoff et al. 2007] rests largely on local and regional tide gauge and tidal marsh records which have been corrected for GIA, but, importantly, not for variability related to AMOC, or they cannot resolve such variability.
This hypothesis has recently been questioned and thus should be reevaluated using quantitative reconstructions of AMOC and records from higher latitudes.</i>
Conclusion Data rules — ideology fools!