A fallacy is argument built from premises that are irrelevant, unacceptable, or otherwise fail to provide the grounds for the conclusion.
You argument can be rewritten:
P1: If something is more than something else, it is only that something.
P2: The sea is more blue than the sky.
C: So the sea is just blue.
It certainly is a fallacy, but I'd argue that this form of bad inference isn't categorized. There is no mention of parts and wholes, so it is not the fallacy of composition. I'd argue there is no label for this fallacy on account it doesn't appeal to the over one-hundred cognitive biases humans are liable to accept where a fallacy is an inference in reasoning that produces contradiction, and a bias is a means by which the human mind assigns certainty to a conclusion. These are subtle but important differences. For example, compare ad hominem with reactive devaluation.