Thank you for providing detailed responses to the reviewers comments. The edits to the paper are rather minimal, and I would like to see two further revisions made, to ensure the reviewers' questions are fully addressed in the paper itself:

1) The figures showing the effect of different smoothing on d0 and d1 included in supplement 2 should be included in the main paper, rather than relegated to a supplement, at the very least because analysis of sensitivity to smoothing ought to be a standard step in any work on distance metrics.

2) The discussion in the authors' response to reviewer 2's first comment about not using spatial information in the metric is interesting and valuable. This should be added to the paper, as it provides a good rationale for the focus on temporal information, and sheds some light on the difficulties of using spatial fields, especially in RCMs.

In addition to these two changes, please clarify the sentence on page 10, line 9: "Quite straightforward and clearly interpretable results suffered…". It's not clear whether you're saying the results were straightforward and interpretable (but suffered additional weaknesses), or whether the weaknesses were big enough that the results were are not straightforward nor easily interpretable.

Once these revisions are made, I will be happy to recommend publication.