We see a near constant rate of rise since 1993, with maybe even a slight slowdown since 2016.
One thing that's definitely accelerating is the hype around climate change.
My points being:
A. You can window any exponential function and make it look linear, especially when it contains a lot of noise like this one, and
B. You may find that people are increasingly unlikely to take you seriously when you format your opinions like this.
Although it's probably true that my attitude here isn't the most constructive, it's also true that for some people (I'll yet withhold final judgement regarding OP), any attempt to educate or have dialog falls on deaf ears.
This gets really tiring when online forums are replete with people willing to espouse opinions based on incomplete or distorted understanding with little more than an offhand remark. So if I come across as frustrated, well, maybe you can try to forgive that. It's harder for me to forgive pseudoscientific evangelism.
The sea level has been rising for over 20,000 years. Just to give you perspective on the changes since the Halocene era began, here's more documented evidence for you to snark about: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_ris...
This shows 20K years of sea level rise since the end of the last glacial period. Numerous centuries in that time contain more rapid sea level rise than present. So, all of that hundreds of feet of rise for the past 20 millenia were natural...except for the past few dozen centimeters of rise? That's all man-made? Give me a break.
It's really frustrating when history deniers like you try to act like you're more educated than the people you're debating when you have a huge gap in your knowledge.
Edit: It's clearer on the second graph below. From 1870 to present it looks very much like an exponential growth curve, particularly the last few decades.
Why do you think it is an exponential function?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level...
"New study finds sea level rise accelerating"
From that NASA page:
> Global sea level rise is accelerating incrementally over time rather than increasing at a steady rate, as previously thought, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.
> If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 — enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities, according to the new assessment by Nerem and colleagues from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; CU Boulder; the University of South Florida in Tampa; and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. The team, driven to understand and better predict Earth's response to a warming world, published their work Feb. 12 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
> "This is almost certainly a conservative estimate," Nerem said. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely."
> Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere increase the temperature of air and water, which causes sea level to rise in two ways. First, warmer water expands, and this "thermal expansion" of the ocean has contributed about half of the 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) of global mean sea level rise we've seen over the last 25 years, Nerem said. Second, melting land ice flows into the ocean, also increasing sea level across the globe.
Now, you are absolutely right that the WMO is talking about faster rates of rise than NASA - from their release:
> Over the five-year period May 2014 -2019, the rate of global mean sea-level rise has amounted to 5 mm per year, compared with 4 mm per year in the 2007-2016 ten-year period. This is substantially faster than the average rate since 1993 of 3.2 mm/year. The contribution of land ice melt from the world glaciers and the ice sheets has increased over time and now dominate the sea level budget, rather than thermal expansion.
It will be interesting to see what data sources that they are using for these figures, compared with NASA. Of course, I fervently hope that WMO is wrong - but I don't hold out much hope that they've simply cocked up the figures.
One final correction - the "hype" isn't accelerating. In fact, given the data, we are being remarkably laid back.