You are minimizing local impact.
The reason sea level changes are recorded in so many areas is because of a multitude of local geology related matters.
A lone neighborhood in Norfolk VA is flooding more frequently because of subsidence in an area formerly wet lands that was backfilled in the 1860s. 14 inches of sinking adjacent to water tends to cause flooding.
Plum Island in MA is showing heavy signs of erosion from tidal currents. Again. Anyone who knows the history of the area knows that more than half the island was washed away in a series of storms at the turn of the 20th century. Massive dredging rebuilt the island after a retaining wall was built to save the remaining area. The wall remains buried partway through the island to this day.
You also have much of Finland, Norway and Iceland showing drops in sea level because of glacial rebound causing the crust to rise.
On the other hand you have slight increases in sea level in Florida because glacial sag. Think of North America as a large flat balloon. Glaciers pressing down on the northern end caused a popup effect on the southern end. With the glaciers gone you see rebound in the north and sagging in the south.
That brings up my earlier question. With all of these regional geography changes happening, and thousands of others not so in your face, what is the benchmark for satellites to determine a change in sea level?
