This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Lookie there, the chartsman has entered the building...
It is deflating because attempting to explain the deception doesn't work unless someone has already made the leap into understanding the deception of charting.
In addition to the "chartmanship" that Brad is talking about, the PDF document which contains the Fig 7 graph also illustrates the opportunism of the pro-AGW side. They tend to release material when it is most expedient to do so.
The document has been issued in 2011. If you look at the annual mean sea level graph on the PSMSL website for Port Vila in Vanuatu, there was a pretty big peak in 2009, which was then starting to come down in 2010. The best time to release a document would be in 2011 to take advantage of the recent peak in the data just in case it was temporary. If you waited a few years and released the document today in 2016, you would then have to include data up to 2015, and the data has now unhelpfully settled down quite a bit from that temporary peak. The mean sea level at Port Vila in 2015 is now 140 mm (14 cm) lower than it was in 2009. (I'm assuming the PSMSL tide data is in mm relative to some datum)
I would assume that these sea level changes are mainly due to geological activity myself - the ground going up and down rather than the sea going up and down. The PSMSL webpage mentions that the sea level rose by 11 cm (which would be due to the ground level dropping) at the start of 2002 due to an earthquake.
A drop of 1mm equates to about 360 cubic kilometres of water, so a drop of 14cm is about 50,400 cubic kilometres or about two and a half Baltic Seas. It's hard to believe that an amount of water that size could disappear from the ocean. It's much easier to believe that the error in the measurements being quoted is fairly large.