[stochtastic]

> Also that assumes the scientists are completely accurate and don't make any mistakes. As recently as 5 years ago they discovered that the measured rise for almost all of the 90s was wrong and revised it by 3mm/year +- 1.7mm/year - the error was the same amount as the imputed level of rise!

Citation for this? There are always improvements to our understanding of past data, but you seem to be implying that the uncertainty exceeds the signal. That's simply not the case [1].

[1] — https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... pp.1291-1292

[revelio]

Ablain, "Uncertainty in Satellite estimate of Global Mean Sea Level changes, trend and acceleration", p4

They have shown that there was a drift in the GMSL record over the period 1993-1998. This drift is caused by an erroneous on-board calibration correction on TOPEX altimeter side-A (noted TOPEX-A). TOPEX-A was operated from launch in October 1992 to the end of January 1999. Then TOPEX side-B altimeter (noted TOPEX-B) took over in February 1999 (Beckley et al., 2017). The impact on the GMSL changes is -1.0 mm/yr between January 1993 and July 1995, 120 and +3.0 mm/yr between August 1995 and February 1999, with an uncertainty of ±1.7 mm/yr (within a 90%CL, (Ablain, 2017)).

[stochtastic]

Figure 1 from that paper didn't convince you that it was a minor issue? Their correction is about 7% of the 1993-2018 signal, and it resolves the discrepancy with respect to other estimates, including non-satellite ones. Nobody relies on estimates from a single satellite alone.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1189/2019/essd-11-11...