The sea level is accelerating at a rate they are adjusting via GIA (statistically significant)! An error shoudld not be of comparable magnitude to the observed rate of change. Things should smell fishy, look fishy and probably taste fishy at this stage.
The numbers are all generally an average over the 20th century - i.e. a long term average compared to the decade (if that) of GIA introduction. I question the timing and the magnitude.
Does it make sense to be applying a correction of 0.3 when the observed+modelling studies (additional source of error) show a sea level rise of 0.2-0.4 over the 20th century? This looks fishy to me.
The levels you quoted were the numbers from the source that computed GIA, I am not surprised it looks legit. I just feel science would marry up everywhere.
