text: A combination of the above questions is also relevant—how does the range of outcomes at 2°C 
  compare to that at 1.5°C? This is also relevant to adaptation policy, as it can inform assessment on 
  whether to adapt to potential impacts at 2°C or just 1.5°C. Putting in place adaptation measures 
  to deal with potential impacts at 1.5°C and then increasing these to deal with 2°C later may 
  be more expensive and difﬁcult than adapting to potential risks at 2°C at the outset. On the 
  other hand, because adaptation actions may themselves have consequences, unnecessary over- 
  adaptation may have undesirable effects which it may be preferable to avoid or at least delay 
  until absolutely necessary. 
  
  **3**
  
  Both questions require an appropriate assessment of uncertainty. There are considerable 
  uncertainties in projections of regional climate change, with different climate models projecting 
  regional climate changes that can differ in magnitude or even, in the case of precipitation 
  and impacts quantities strongly related to this, differ in sign [5,6]. This may have important 
  implications for regional impacts at speciﬁc levels of global warming. A common approach to 
  exploring and presenting such uncertainties is to examine the ensemble mean and the level of 
  consensus among the ensemble members on the sign of the change. While this can often be useful 
  in informing an assessment of the level of conﬁdence in future projections, it may not always be 
  sufﬁcient to fully inform decisions. Risk assessment approaches require consideration of a range 
  of possible risks, not just the most likely. This paper explores a range of regional climate states 
  and related impacts that occur at global warming of 2°C, and a range of differences with warming 
  limited to 1.5°C. 