That’s a fair argument to make (though whether they pass the statistical significance test depends on which model(s) you use, and the ECS (and TCR) values used, as well).
My issue is with the idea that constitutes a “consensus” in climate science, which I strongly disagree with. Because there is no fundamental, physical law that requires precipitation in any particular region to increase/decrease.
Reading over coffee this morning on the signs of an AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) collapse as early as next year and its impact to the Pacific Northwest. Fascinating to see that there are strong correlations to melt water and East Coast ridging. Blows my mind that we may have finally hit a tipping point with AMOC weakening and that might kick off a couple decades of colder weather for us while a stagnant ocean starts to eat away at the southern ice sheet.
I generally agree. Maybe we’re nearing some consensus on this!
I tend to think that the regions that pass statistical significance testing are of fairly high confidence. And ultimately people need to make decisions based on the best available projections—which is what these maps largely show.