I'm afraid I cannot validate or invalidate your numbers. When I plug the same data into three different calulators I get three very different answers. Obviously a lot of assumptions in the models are at play in the background.
Personally, I refuse to panic on the basis of CO2 numbers alone. Sometimes these can mask a more three-dimensional view of problems and solutions.
Urban dwellers, for example, are not required to account for the embodied energy and emissions in their water, sewer, road and concrete sidewalk systems. Nor for the transportation systems that deliver their food. This leads to creative accounting.
I think country dwellers have many more opportunities for common sense offsets and lifestyle choices even though on the surface our CO2 numbers may appear to be higher. For example, I wonder about the impact of all the biochar I have made and incorporated into living soil over decades. And all the wood heat I used instead of natural gas. So I begin to think the downstream impacts over time make my numbers look better than the calculators would have me believe. My 2c.