http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=1612340

Obviously they aren't accelerating any more than the the non accelerating warming. I suspect Honolulu is more stable than most places so it probably is gives a reasonably good measure of sea level rise. Trevor is correct that it is measured in different places because land isn't really stable and rises and falls in different places. In fact, the delta from the Mississippi River causes the sediments in the basin to subside. These sediments pile up over time in the delta and due to isostatic forces, they cause the ground to subside just as a glacier might. Pumping groundwater has also caused some subsidence and there are probably other factors as well. This is why New Orleans has APPARENT sea level rise. The land is sinking which is different from the sea level rising. Is it just me that believes words mean things.

Makes one wonder what the rate was from 1910 - 1940, since the rate of warming was essentially the same as it has been for the past 30 years? Then again, I'm not sure there was an El Nino event after 1910 as large as the one we had in 1997 - 1998.

According to Jeff M's graph, sea levels rose at essentially the same rate between 1940 and 1970 when there is a "flat-lining" or even a "cooling" trend in temperatures. If warming is causing sea levels to rise, then we can also assume that they rise regardless of past 30 year trends.

No conclusions can be made that tie recent warming to sea levels. If it was true, then the period between 1940 and 1970 would have shown no trend upwards in sea levels.

Sea level has been rising for centuries. Yet scientists try to claim an acceleration to get their scare stories about sea level rises flooding buildings and cities.

Why in the world would you only look at one area of the world unless you were attempting to throw the wool over other peoples eyes?

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrend...

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map....

You asked before what makes you anti-science. Incidents like this do. You pick and choose what data to look at while ignoring the rest. Here is an example.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

Here are various sources for sea level rise.

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/... ( 2.9 ± 0.4 mm/y )

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ ( 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/y )

Much longer data set

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

Just by eyeballing this one you can see that sea level rise has increased.

Edit: Yes you are anti-science. Stop pretending you care about science. Sea level rise is a global phenomenon. Regional sea levels can be affected by numerous things. You are making an assumption that you know there is nothing that affects this area.

There are 5 tide gauges in the same area. In Hilo Hawaii sea level is rising at a rate of 3.27 ± 0.35 mm/y. Do you think this area has succumbed to isostatic rebound? How about Kahuliu, Hawaii with a rate of 2.32 ± 0.53 mm/y? Why not take those measurements instead? You chose an area that met your expectations and posted it as if it is global. Or you can take the Sagebrush technique when discussing this, call everyone that doesn't agree with them an idiot after stating there is no sea level rise, and then go on about how "water reaches it's own level".

Global sea-levels are not calculated based on one specific location as they vary significantly from place to place.

Here’s Grand Isle, Louisiana where sea-levels are rising by 9mm per year: