When does alerting the public to a potential weather risk spill over into alarming people unnecessarily? That's the question I've been battling with over the past two weeks as we went from first predicting a tropical storm to then having a slow, sluggish and very large tropical low hover over the upper North Island for several days.
We wait before making predictions on a big scale but we see no harm in discussing potential future weather risks. In the internet age the public can already see what online weather models are predicting up to two weeks in advance, and they then come to us wanting our take on it.
So we write news stories about it. people read the headline only - "Tropical cyclone may take aim at NZ". Then five days later they email us and say "so much for that cyclone".
So we asked our readers: "Do you like how we discuss future weather risks, or would you rather we only commented on weather events we have high confidence in?"
Overwhelmingly, the public said they wanted to know about systems well in advance, regardless of our confidence levels, so long as we explained the risks, potential and the full picture.