No, I didn't do any calculations. I am not making any affirmative statements, you are.
Your work fails as back of the envelope approximations. There are unexplained, or even unacknowledged assumptions, unsound extrapolations and flim flam. One egregious example is "Humans contribute only 3.4% of the annual CO2 greenhouse gas". Nobody said they aren't. The statement sounds deceptive because most greenhouse gases are watervapor which has an average lifetime in the atmosphere of about a week. A CO2 molecule has an average lifetime of about 25 years. The CO2 molecule has about 1000 times the warming potential. That's first and most obvious thing. It is not worth my time deconstructing the whole thing. It's propaganda and psuedoscience. It doesn't advance an open minded and honest search for the truth.
“... The CO2 molecule has about 1000 times the warming potential …”
Some citations please.
methane is far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule. So you’re telling me CO2 is worse? How?
And yes CO2 accumulates, roughly cycles through at 100 years. However whole feedback mechanism is very poorly understood. So likely any numerical value is wrong.
I would love to have you deconstruct it. Maybe I might learn something!
Ok, so you argument boils down to, “ You’re wrong but I am not going to bother refuting what you say”? Lol.
There is sixty times as much water vapor as carbon dioxide and water vapor has three times the heat capacity. It is also massively more available to affect climate. Raise the temperature and you readily get a lot more of it. CO2 not so much.
It is also worth noting that trapping heat and raising temperature are not the same thing. It gets a lot hotter in dryer areas because there is nowhere for the energy to go. The simplistic CO2 arguments being made by global warming advocates are compounded errors in support of a doomsday fantasy.