Are you really silly or are you being silly just for show?
How does color relate to CO2 temperatures? Do you think that because coal is black then carbon must be blacker than regular air and more CO2 means that atmosphere is darker so it absorbs more heat? This is not how it works.
I wanted to run the Greenhouse Effect in a Jar experiment but apparently it does not work even if you have a jar with pure 100% CO2 and the claimed increase in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million and the actual atmospheric CO content is way less than 1%.http://www.weatherquestions.com/Why_the ... t_work.htm
The only effect of the CO2 increase is increase in the total biomass and greening of the deserts.
Talking about the scientific method
I suggest a simpler experiment you can run:
Measure temperature at noon and record it.
Measure temperature at midnight at the same spot and record it.
Compare the temperatures.
If the temperature during the night is lower than during the day then compare the conditions attempting to find the difference.
You may reach a conclusion that Sun is warming air during the day.
You can extrapolate that and create a general rule that variations in the Sun radiation cause temperature fluctuations.
Now, Sun is a spontaneous dynamic fusion reactor with variations in its output.
Now if you look into that you will find out that the Sun has a 11 year cycle, 200 year cycle and other suspected cycles that last thousands of years.
And the 200 year cycle is about to bottom out in 2035.
We are likely to see a noticeable drop in global temperatures soon.
On top of that we have Milankovitch cycles, variations in the content of dust in the galactic medium and processes like variation in cosmic rays and its effects on cloud formation.
Scientific method is a very useful tool but it has to be rigorously followed.
Just saying that color changes relate to CO2 positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere,
or that increases in CO2 measured in parts per million do while simple experiment with 100% CO2 in a jar fails,
do not generate any credibility.
The fact that AL Gore and Bill Nye faked that experiment the,
fact that Michael Mann the creator of hockey stick refused to provide his raw data during a defamation lawsuit
and the fact that during Climate Gate there was an ample discussion of how to manipulate the data to "hide the decline" and destroy it prevent FOIA requests does not help the credibility.
But of course if I am talking to a believer in the True Church of AGW, then no facts can undermine the established religious dogma.