They were quite small on the page I took them from.

Anyways, on to a different topic.
ER was complaining about Tom only giving one side of the issue involving Global Warming. I don't agree. But here is a site that gives both sides:
http://climatedebatedaily.com/

On the latest "Calls to action" side the article is:
"55 million years ago a massive release of carbon caused extreme global warming and severely altered the chemistry of the oceans. This event holds clues to our future..."
The first paragraph of article leads:
"If carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels continue on a "business-as-usual" trajectory, humans will have added about 5 trillion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere by the year 2400. A similarly massive release of carbon accompanied an extreme period of global warming 55 million years ago known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151221.htm

Now, I don't know what is meant by "business-as-usual" trajectory. I suppose giving numbers might be too boring for the reader. Ok, so we accept this vague thing and go to the next part: the year 2400. Who is claiming that we have a global supply of coal until the year 2200, less alone 2400?

The article goes on to discuss such silliness as Ocean acidification and other things, but fails to really describe Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Fortunately, Wiki has some details:
"Dutch scientists studying material from the Arctic Coring Expedition found fossilized algae characteristic of subtropical waters averaging about 20¡ãC in sediment cores taken on the Lomonosov Ridge between Siberia and Greenland, where the current average temperature is -1.5¡ãC. Atmospheric carbon levels during the period are thought to have been about 2,000-3,000 parts per million (ppm), compared with 380 ppm today."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

So, arctic surface ocean regions was around 20 C higher in average temperatures than today, there was no significant glaciers on the Planet [there isn't any polar ice caps- the present Greenland and Antarctic ice masses were created some 3 million years ago- with even earlier polar caps creations at earlier times]. In other words this is climate far more extremely warm than Al Gore is foretelling- which is "just" all of Greenland's ice caps melting [which can't happen in a thousand years despite Gore's claim, even if the craziest of crazies is right about rising global temperature].
In other words we talking about a warming period in Earth history which was over a very long period AND at the beginning of such warming at the more "normal temperatures" there was no year long polar ice caps. There could been some snow in the winter somewhere- maybe some actual glaciers at higher elevations in selected areas.

Ok, so we have had 100 ppm increase in CO2 in last 100 years or so. Say we have a 200 ppm increase per Century until 2400. So that's a 800 ppm increase & add that to present level of 380 giving 1080 ppm. Now, I did mention that we probably don't have enough coal on the planet to burn at the present rate we are burning it at. And probably, if not some other kind of technological solution, we will be forced to switch to nuclear energy to replace coal in the next 100 or so years. But anyhow, so say we got in 2400 1080 ppm CO2, and say 10 C increase in global temperature.
So, you could grow orange trees in Oregon, maybe even in some places in Canada. Even with these "dream" conditions Greenland glaciers aren't going melt away any time soon- and even don't think about Antarctic, it would still be colder than our current Greenland. Glaciers in Greenland and Antarctic might even grow. Though it's possible that somewhere around say 10-20% of Greenland ice cap melts- causing 4' rise in sea level. And under these conditions it could possible that nearly all polar sea ice melts every year.
Now, under these extreme conditions, we would be no where near Paleocene¨CEocene Thermal Maximum conditions in the year 2400.
We would barely notice a 4' rise in sea level- no one is going to die from this increase in temperatures, nor are even the polar bears going to die off- it's possible they could increase in numbers- though no doubt they will need to live further north- maybe a 1000 miles northward so they would confined to areas mostly within the Arctic Circle.
Ocean surface temperatures will rise, though deep ocean temperatures won't change much- if this type of high global temperature were last say another 500 years, then you might see a couple degree increase.
There will be some affects, but a 10 degree increase in global temperature would less impact on humans and/or other animals as compared to 1 or 2 C decrease in global temperatures.

Considering that Urban heat island effect can add about 10 C to average temperature in small regional area, it would possible that cities which are hot in summer today could be designed so that even in the world which has 10 C warmer, they could be cooler and have less heatwave affects than they suffer from today.

Another aspect of this is that regionally high swings in in average yearly temperatures [say 3-4 C] occur all the time all over this planet and by moving north or South by couple thousand miles will cause larger changes in average yearly temperatures than 10 C. And if you live in the tropical regions there will no noticeable increases in your yearly average temperature- assuming this increase was due to an enhanced greenhouse affect rather an increase in the Sun's energy [and tropical oceans wouldn't get warmer.

And one final note. Because the location of Earth's landmasses- particularly Antarctic. Earth is more resistant to warming than 55 million years ago. So, even with 2000-3000 ppm Global CO2 and other warming factors Earth would warm less than 55 million years ago.