Typo.
The revised paper responds well overall to the referee concerns. A number of editorial and clarifying issues are listed below. With these addressed the paper will be ready for publication.

Line 75 RFC frameworj,

Line 146 and line 148
This phrase " distributions for 1.5◦C and 2◦C" is unclear. I assume this refers to distributions of a specific parameter of interest under the 1.5 and 2.0 time slices? Please clarify.

Section title
Typo: 3 Extremes Weather Events
-> 3 Extreme Weather Events

Line 181
Do the indices evaluated by Sillmann et al. (2013a) include the four used here? If so it would be useful to clarify this, and if not, this should also be mentioned.

Line 217
It is not clear in "We excluded these grid-cells for the CDF analysis for the respective regions. " exactly which cells are excluded. (the previous sentence only says "large share of ocean surface"). Clarify (perhaps referring to supplementary material)

For Figures 2 and 3 it would be useful to clarify in the captions that the graph axles are identical (I presume) for all regions.

For the
Line 285: Typo

"stretch over month and potentially years" -> "stretch over months and potentially years"

section "5.1 Methods and Data"
(or perhaps in the results discussion at the end of this section)

The importance of extreme events is mentioned, to what extent is this included in the ISI-MIP simulations? If this is not well simulated by the crop models (or, indeed, the GCM results) then the results might not be representative of differences between the 1.5 and 2.0 degree cases. Consider if some comment might be useful on this point. (e.g., You are using the state of the art model comparison, and you mention this -- but it would be useful to summarize in the text a number of issues that may impact the results. Better connect this discussion to the ISI-MIP simulations and their strengths/weaknesses.)

Line 427
Is this "risk of substantial reductions of 25 % (1.5◦C) and 20 % (2◦C) in the CO2-ensemble" correct? (The reduction is higher under 1.5 than 2.0?).

Line 520 "The results for the 2◦C scenario are comparable with projections by Church et al. (2013) and Hinkel et al. (2014) for RCP2.6 (their Tables 13.5 and 4, respectively) that leads to a median GMT increase of about 1.6◦C above pre-industrial levels."

is a bit confusing. Why does your 2° scenario lead to a median GMT increase of 1.6◦C?

Please clarify.

Figure 15 is a nice summary of the work and, as such, its important that it be able to stand alone without reading the entirely of the paper. I asked the referees to take a look and I include their comments below along with mine.

-- Crop yield numbers should specify if this is with/without CO2 fert (or both?).
-- The likely (66%) ranges could be in a smaller font and separated from the mean value. (this would help the figure seem less crowded and busy)
-- In the description in the first section, it might be clearer to be explicit “Tropical regions up to 2 months at 1.5°C warming or up to 3 months at 2°C warming”
-- Description for annual water availability: “America” is misspelled
-- For the section on crop yields, the figure indicates these results are for yields, but the text refers to "risks" and "benefits". (which seems likely to be read as a broader assessment than just yield changes). Perhaps limit wording in the description to refer to yields.
-- For the global sea level section, it looks as if the first line is total increase (relative to ?) while the second is rate. However the text to the side only refers only refers to rate. This can be confusing. Please clarify.