Review of calculation of CO$_2$ contribution to warming
This reminds me of using Bjørn Lomborg's book in statistics, as examples how not to do statistics, his calculations never make any sense or just make unfounded leaps to conclusions.
Erik seems to have the same problem he just throws numbers together with no rhyme or reason.
Let's just break down his calculation.
1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003 °C.
Why are we multiplying by 0.25, he says CO$_2$ is only 25% as good as water, but water is nowhere in this calculation, there is no reason for this to even be here much less to be multiplied. Also why can't he solve 1/4?
1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 = ??
This is just plain wrong, CO$_2$ comprises 0.04% of total gas and ~93% of trace gasses, even more of greenhouse gasses, unless he is arguing some undiscovered change in nitrogen or argon is acting as a greenhouse gas, this has no place in the calculation. Also again why is he multiplying by the increase in CO$_2$? Does he think ALL gasses in the atmosphere increased by 30% that the atmosphere got 30% heavier in 150 years?
1 °C × 0.30 = ??
What is this calculation meant to do? One times anything is always whatever you multiply it by, so all you are calculating is units, but units are ignored in the calculation, and what purpose does multiplying degrees of change times percentage of increase do?
There is no point arguing with Larsen, either he does not understand math (in which case you are wasting your time) or he is purposefully being misleading (and it just gives him attention). Either way there is no benefit to arguing with him. Your best case is he does not understand math otherwise he is just using a completely unjustified string of numbers to have something that looks scientific because it has a equation in it counting on the fact most people who read it don't know enough about math to see the problem.