But the rate of evaporation of water is a function of its temperature. If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases. It's physically impossible for additional energy to increase evaporation without an accompanying increase in temperature.
CO2 already causes a global average above 30 W/m^2 of absolute forcing, and sea water absorbs all of this in the first few microns of surface depth. Only about 10% of the water from the oceans make landfall because the rest returns to the oceans. This latent heat ends up mostly back in the atmosphere. Not the ocean.
I don't know if the average 39" global precipitation is only over land, or land and sea combined. I assume it land and sea since it is a global metric. This means the oceans are evaporating about 1.4 meters annually. Now the ocean is only losing an average of 44.4 nanometers per second at this rate, but over the area of one square meter, that is .0444 grams per second. This still seems insignificant without perspective. It takes 2,257 joules of energy (2,257 watt-seconds) to evaporate one gram of water at 100 C. Seawater is only much less than that, so we can safely add another 70 calories (1 calories/degree) or 293 or more grams, for an energy exchange of 2,550 joules per meter, to evaporate that water. This means it takes above 113 W/m^2 to evaporate that water.
This is more than three times what CO2 has to offer for forcing. Now there is other greenhouse gas forcing, the sun, and the other primary variable... The wind... The wind dramatically modulates the evaporation process.
What this evaporation amounts to in itself, is an average 100+ (113 calculated here) W/m^2 of cooling. The increased forcing by CO2, since it is at the immediate surface, increases this evaporation process, and possible increases ocean cooling rather than warming it. Regardless, if it warms, the increased evaporation it causes means that only a fraction of that increased CO2 spectra warms the ocean past the immediate surface area.
Now I know you cannot follow my explanation here, as I know it's above your head. You have proven to be an activist without understanding the facts. That said, we have a new person to these forums that probably can follows what I wasted my time on you for.