text: up to present-day plus model-projected warming thereafter (table 4). While this does lead to 
  inconsistent deﬁnitions of dates of the GWLs for applications of the climate model output with 
  and without bias correction, the focus here is on the level of warming relative to pre-industrial 
  rather than the timing of this warming. Therefore, priority is given to an accurate quantiﬁcation 
  of GWLs in all parts of the study, at the expense of inconsistencies in the dates of these warming 
  levels. The inconsistency between the dates of the GWLs ranged from 2 to 9 years depending on 
  the model and warming level. This inconsistency would have consequences if these results were 
  applied to time-dependent impacts and adaptation assessments, but that is not the case here so 
  this concern does not apply. However, one issue is that the time-dependent nature of the aerosol 
  forcing means that the spatial pattern of regional climate responses varies over time, so this will 
  lead to some degree of inconsistency between the analysis of the ClimPACT extremes and the 
  HCVI and JULES impacts projections. 
  
  3. Results 
  
  For a world at 2°C global warming, we present a range of outcomes to provide insight into the 
  level of agreement between models for a particular projected change, and hence an indication 
  of potential robustness of the projected changes for informing adaptation. We then make a 
  comparison of impacts at global warming 1.5°C to investigate the level of impact that would 
  be avoided by limiting global warming to different levels. Bearing in mind the uncertainty in 
  regional climate outcomes, we address this in a number of ways. For individual realizations, we 
  compare the impacts at different warming levels to see if they are systematically smaller at 1.5°C, 
  even if the sign of the change is uncertain. We also compare the range of outcomes at different 
  GWLs, to see if the regional-scale uncertainty itself increases with global warming. 