Melting ice could ... fuck shit?

[Obamot]

indeed, it will make the European climate change towards something colder, a bit like British Columbia ... Is it a bad thing in the midst of warming?

Who can answer this question (even if I share this opinion)?

But I vote for the status quo ... ... if we get there one day ..

[...] All the more so as what would be more worrying, it would be the interruption of the "conveyor belt" of the Gulf stream ... which if that happened could cause a sudden ice age, settling on less than five years according to some, and spanning more than 100 years without being sure of a return to normal afterwards ... [...]

No, an "ice age" would affect the entire planet while the Gulf Stream only affects the coasts of Western Europe ...

Not quite. The massive desalination of seawater at the origin of the phenomenon has already started ... By the principle of communicating vessels this will not affect only a limited area.

And the movie The Day After Tomorrow (although it exaggerates on certain points) also announces a glaciation which could reach North America at least as far as New York (in the worst scenario of this case).

Even if it is questionable, the truth is not that we know absolutely nothing about it?

[Ahmed]

Obamot writing:

By the principle of communicating vessels this will not affect only a limited area.

Precisely this principle currently applies and allows the massive transfer of calories from tropical areas to the coasts of western Europe, via the gulf-stream, if it were to stop our winter climate would be much colder. , while the eastern coasts of America would probably be less so since no longer undergoing the descent of the Labrador Current (symmetrical current reverse to the gulf-stream).
It is indeed difficult to predict with certainty the real evolution of the climate, all the more so as heat transfers are not only marine, but that the air masses contribute powerfully to climate balancing. Could they more or less replace failing sea currents?

However, the most serious consequences of a climatic imbalance would not be observed in temperate zones, but in tropical zones where the temperature would increase very significantly, with the consequences that we imagine on the survival possibilities of populations. (and which would also bring enormous power to cyclonic phenomena).

[Obamot]

Obamot writing:

By the principle of communicating vessels this will not affect only a limited area.

Precisely this principle currently applies and allows the massive transfer of calories from tropical areas to the coasts of western Europe, via the gulf-stream, if it were to stop our winter climate would be much colder. , while the eastern coast of America would be probably less since no longer undergoing the descent of the Labrador current (symmetrical reverse current to the gulf-stream).

Well yes, logical deduction but who can affirm it.

It is indeed difficult to predict with certainty the real evolution of the climate, all the more so as heat transfers are not only marine, but that the air masses contribute powerfully to climate balancing. Could they more or less replace failing sea currents?

You'll have to ask Ms. Irma.

However, the most serious consequences of a climatic imbalance would not be observed in temperate zones,

I wouldn't put my hand to cut it

The most serious consequences [...] [would] be observed in tropical areas where the temperature would increase very significantly,

It is already the case there is hardly any more "winter" in Southeast Asia.

with the consequences that we imagine on the survival possibilities of populations (and which would also bring enormous power to cyclonic phenomena).

Yes it already seems to be going in this direction, the pilots are already complaining about the violence of the disturbances which would have increased. But to say that it would be limited to this kind of phenomenons would be quite reductive.

All we know is we don't know.

[Ahmed]

You were right to highlight the "probably", because of the great uncertainties that weigh on these climate speculations.

However, I don't think we know anything: the earth is a system that receives solar heat in an unbalanced way. As a rough analogy, we can consider the inter-tropical zone as a boiler and the poles as the radiators responsible for dissipating this energy; between the two, obviously, round trip (hot water-cold water) marine and wind circuits.
If our gulf-stream (and others, elsewhere, having the same function) stops, there will be a large increase in inter-tropical temperature, a proportional increase in evaporation and rainfall.
It is also logical to think that the second control system will work much more intensively, since the temperature difference between hot and cold zone will be greater.
It is unlikely that this system can regulate, on its own, as well as the two together. The strong air activity will result in an increased dynamism of cyclonic phenomena, which risks being more than unpleasant for a good part of the planet.
For Western Europe, it would not be a glaciation; it would seem that we would get closer to the climate of New York *, which is not all the same a disaster.

These are the likely outlines, but the details can change everything ...

* regarding the temperature, for the rest ...?