Let me explain what i mean by terraforming. Let's say we want Antarctica to be like Scandinavia or Finland.
There are much more accessible parts of the planet that are currently hardly populated (or unpopulated) that would be easier to transform. The interior of Greenland. Much of Northern Canada and Northern Russia. Antarctica would be a much more difficult to operate in and start from. For that matter the population density in large tracts of Australia and the US are equally empty and, again, more practical targets.
Changing any of these regions is essentially going to wreck the entire globe's climate. Even a change to make Antarctica more like Finland would be devastating.
Long, long, long before you try any of those people will starting living in larger and more densely populated highrise and subsurface population centers - higher and deeper.
People from all over the Earth would colonise it and build "United states of Antarctica"or something similar.It would basically become a next generation USA.
Unless you happen to have a magic formula for world peace and to make humans actually get along with each other and stop being greedy that's not going to happen. Instead countries and corporations will compete for access to the regions resources (as they're now going to be unlocked and more easily exploited. Unless the UN gets a huge army, the UN will be what it usually is in these contexts - a referee who can't stop the players arguing but can tell them off later.
I know that a lot of ice will melt on the continent,and ocean level will increase. This can be a serious problem for the rest of the planet,but let's say we (or aliens,pour example) have technology to "Suck" this water and use it for some industrial purposes(That's irrelevant).
Extremely relevant. It's a vast quantity of water and it will end up where ? Even a small fraction of that water is devastating to the climate (and is one of the important factors in global warming). You'd be talking about basically all of it (maybe half left as permafrost at best) which is way, way, way beyond global warming. So it's essential you have a place to put this water where it won't do harm.
I know,however,that changes in temperature may lead to some serious problems on our world. It may distrupt the temperatures around other places,et cetera.
Wipe of all sea life, make the entire rest of the globe uninhabitable, wipe out all arable crops (and the places to grow them) and possibly make the planet as hot as Venus by a runaway greenhouse effect.
Now for the question:Is it possible to change Antarctica to resemble Northern Europe (Temperature) without harming the rest of the globe?
If you want to live in Antarctica (why when so many better places exist ?), then you build enclosed structures with closed environments. These would be orders of magnitude easier to build (although still a major task) and even more magnitudes easier to do safely, without affecting anywhere else (or more precisely with minimal effects to the climate). Underground is an option.
Best answer will contain:
Just so you understand how SE work : members decide what a best answer is, not the OP by voting on their views. They can use any criteria they want to judge what they consider "best".
HOW would that be possible? Exotic technologies of the far future:enabled
As I say it's not practical to do it the way you want. It's far simpler (in some reasonable future) to be able to build and maintain large surface or underground structures in the Antarctic which have e.g. geothermal heat sources for energy and grow their own food.
The trickiest part would be stopping the heat from such settlements from altering the environment locally (again to global detriment). This would require some form of heat transfer mechanism that moved that heat to were it would do less harm. Not impossible, but well beyond anything I can imagine. It's way beyond me to say if the geothermal option is truly viable (it's probably plausible at the story level anyway).