A couple of possible factors come to mind.  Firstly is that the simple fact of slower response times would smooth over the more up and down global mean curve.  Observed sea level rise is primarily thermal expansion and icesheet/glacial melt, both more ponderous processes.  Secondly, if you look at N hemisphere vs S. hemisphere 20th century trends you will actually see that the S hemisphere did not ever show any prolonged cooling, rather more of a brief spike and return to gradual warming.  See here:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/hemisphe ...

I point this out because the majority of the earth's oceans are in the southern hemisphere.  This differing behaviour is also consistent with the fact that globally aerosol pollutions are more prevelant in the north.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Also, the caverns under the earth will open up and take in more of the sea water.   A huge underground sea has already been discovered in China.

My model predicts this precipitous drop in ocean levels confirmed by the Arctic.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Seriously, though, isn't this a bit like the 'it's cold today in __' one? It's the overall picture you have to look at.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

But I have heard that in Alaska, the issue is not so much that the sea level has been changing.

It's that the land underneath the ice is decompressing as the ice melts off.

_

Not sure if this is the case in this discussion.

Could the rise as shown in the graph be the result of the erosion of the earth's land masses into the oceans?  What is the volume of mud that streams into the oceans from all of the great rivers like the Mississippi, Nile etc. and isn't that going to displace water at a 1 to 1 ratio?  Add in all of the beach erosion from wave action and wind erosion - which all should be fairly steady over time or more likely increasing due to human developments - and perhaps causing ocean levels to rise at a steady to increasing rate.

I can't think of any forces that work in reverse by depositing eroded material flushed into the oceans back onto the land.  Only plate tectonics can do this but I would think plates around the world are both sinking and rising and thereby offsetting each other.

Just a thought.

Without doing any measurements, I would think a step back and bit of thought would put this into perspective.

Erosion is not new, (despite the books for sale at the Grand Canyon gift shop) so if erosion were outpacing tectonic activity wouldn't we already have a pretty flat and worn down land surface?

Sea level has fallen and come back up by over 100 metres many times over the last million years and was even 150 metres higher than it is today 10's of millions of years ago.  Unless you have a reason to believe land has eroded and reformed this quickly it would seem this is not a significant factor in past sea level changes.

And if this is to explain current trends (which already have a very well supported explanation btw) you need to demonstrate some major change having occured.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

I followed the links and I got to a page like this:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/psmsl_individual_stations.html ...

Tons of individual monitoring stations.  So, where is the data that was actually used to paint those summary data points?   I suppose I will have to look at each of these stations to see if someone is cooking the books.

I've already presented data from NOAA showing that there are more low tide anomalies than high tide anomalies around the US coast.  

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))