This week, a seemingly freak weather event hit the NYC and mid-Atlantic states. On Wednesday, the temperature soared to 62 degrees. As the birds tweeted and New Yorkers sweat in the jackets they had become accustomed to wearing, a blizzard was taking shape over Pennsylvania and heading for the five boroughs. Within 24 hours, what seemed like the beginning of spring turned into a winter wonderland covered in 10 inches or more of snow, with a feels like at 8 degrees. The massive drop in temperatures spelled climate change to many. But does it?

Before we begin, I am a physics major who knows anthropomorphic climate change is very real. But stating an anomalous meteorological event as evidence of a changing climate is dangerous, and it's part of the reason why we are in this mess. So in short, the answer to the question, "does one day's weird weather spell out climate change?" is no – hell no. In fact, in the past, we have had higher temperatures at this time during the year. This early in February 1991, the temperature reached 70 degrees. I will be fair and say that the temperature in 1991 did not plummet 50 degrees in 24 hours. That's still strange based on the data I have seen. Most major storms are also not accompanied by such a plummet of temps.

But my point here is: you know climate change is very real and very problematic, so do all the climatologists in the world a favor. Please do not act so reactionary to a weird single day in weather. That's meteorology, not climatology. Do not listen to people when they say things like, "Winter used to always be cold, and now it's warm and spring-like – this must be climate change." Or when they say, "When I was younger, when it was winter, you knew it was winter. Now it's warm." In fact, the data does not support such accusations at all. And climatological trends are not on the same scale of time as meteorology.

How Not To Help Scientists:

Does Hurricane Sandy hitting New York and New Jersey signify climate change? No, New York has had hurricanes in its past. This is strange to our idea of New York weather, but statistically not that rare.

Does it being 70 degrees on Christmas Eve in 2015 signify climate change? Or the insane weather we had this week? Or the California drought? As isolated events, no, none of them do. However, if you would like to combine all of them together and you find correlations that disprove the null hypothesis that climate change is not happening, well now you have a case. All these events combined could be signifiers of climate change, but not one.

Therefore, when a heatwave hits in February, it alone doesn't mean climate change. But heatwaves growing in frequency and intensity over a period of decades does.

How To Help Scientists:

If you want to help scientists with our outreach and explanation of a changing climate, here are a few examples I have found through my own personal research, examples from NASA and so on.

- NASA puts out reports year after year that the global temperature is rising. Share this data. Share them only from NASA, EPA and NOAA, and not from external news outlets that dramatize it; it's already dramatic enough.

- In my own studies, I've found that the snowfall per year in NYC has been on the increase, while simultaneously the average summer and winter surface temperatures have increased. This follows the idea that melting glaciers from Greenland cause sea surface temperature cooling and water evaporation. This cools the sea and puts moisture into the air, fueling monster blizzards. In fact, the 1996 blizzard was the first storm of its kind. It paralyzed the snow prone Northeast for half a week. But since 1996, we have had the 2006 storm that outdid the 1996 storm. And then last year, the 2016 blockbuster Nor'easter outdid the 2006 storm. These storms that used to be on the order of every 2 or 3 decades or so are happening every decade, and growing in intensity. This follows the ideas of Wang et. al in a 2012 paper that predicted an increase in extratropical cyclone frequency and intensity, whilst having a decrease in tropical cyclone frequency.

- Two hurricanes hitting the Northeastern coast of the U.S. so close together in time is rare, although this also happened 100 years ago so it may not be a climatological trend. Though there is not enough data to make any valid claims, be on the lookout. Sediment core data suggests that hurricane activity in the Northeast increased during the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age also had a similar effect as what global sea surface temperatures are seeing now. If you look at the global SST anomaly chart given by the IPCC, you will notice a blue blob under Greenland. This also occurred during the Little Ice Age a few hundred years back. The cause today is anthropomorphic, however. Thus, if the data provides any insight, hurricanes hitting New York may no longer be a once-every-50-years event, but a far more frequent event. Combined with higher extratropical cyclone intensity and the merging of hurricanes with extratropical cyclones into superstorms, the frequency and intensity of such storms may increase. Two storms is not enough, but if a third or fourth – or seventh – one hit, then yes, this may be the product of climate change.

Please notice the differences in what does and doesn't help scientists. Stating that this week's weather was strange, and thus climate change must be true, is insane and non-scientific. Stating that data shows that storms that used to hit NYC every few decades are hitting exactly 10 years apart between 1996 and 2016, with growing intensity and snowfall rates, is far better at showing a strange and changing climate.

If you know climate change is real and trust us scientists, then please help us out and stay focused on science, or else the right will continue to argue against climate change as Florida slowly sinks like the bow of a ship after striking an iceberg.