1. Does this storm prove global warming is really just a hoax cooked up by degenerate scientists like my Twitter feed keeps saying? No. Again: no. Absolutely, positively no. This is weather, not climate. Just like a collie isn't a species, a crouton isn't a salad and the aglet on your shoelace ain't the whole shoe, so too is a single meteorological event in your town (or state or region) not the same as climate. All the same, you'll hear a lot of self-satisfied huffing from climate change deniers this week. Please feel free to laugh at them.
East Coast Readies Itself for Up to 3 Feet of Snow
Benjamin Lowy—Getty Images Reportage for TIME
2. Then is the blizzard a result of climate change—the much discussed "global weirding"? If we're going to smack down the anti-science kooks on question one, let's resist the urge for a touchdown dance on question two. It's true that climate change means a growing number of extreme weather events, and the spike in storms like 2012's Sandy that do a billion dollars of damage or more do fit with climate change models. But again, any one storm is proof only of that storm. And hey, when you're getting three feet of snow, that should be trouble enough.
3. Speaking of Sandy, do I have to call the blizzard Juno? No. Indeed, please don't. Unlike hurricanes, which are named by the World Meteorological Organization as part of a longstanding global tradition, Juno was named by the Weather Channel, as part of a somewhat newer tradition of thinking up scary names that sound good on TV. You are free to give this blizzard any name you want. I'm calling it Larry.
4. What about "nor'easter?" Can I call the blizzard that? Are you a lobster fisherman? From Maine? If not, no.
5. Is "blizzard" just a synonym, for "lots o' snow"? Nope, there's actually a technical definition: There must be falling snow (or blowing snow already on the ground), with winds of at least 35 mph (56 k/h) reducing visibility to no more than 0.25 mile (0.4 km) for at least three hours.
6. Do I really need 12 tins of powdered milk, a case of canned tuna and five dozen double-A batteries to get through this? Yes, if it's 1952 and you're packing a fallout shelter. Otherwise, we're talking a couple of snow days at the most—followed by the risk of way too many tuna casseroles for the rest of the year if you don't get ahold of yourself.
7. Does it have to be so flipping cold for a blizzard to happen? This may not be much comfort to you, Concord, NH, where it's 14°F (-10°C) in the run-up to the big blast, but no, as long as the atmospheric temperature is 32°F (0°C) or below, snow can form. It can even be a few degrees warmer on the ground, but the snow that falls will quickly become slush or, as it's known on the sidewalks of New York City, goo.
8. I've heard this storm is a result of meteorological "bombogenesis." Surely the people at weather service are smoking something? Alas no. Bombogenesis is a real word and it occurs when the barometric pressure in the most intense part of a storm drops more than 24 millibars in 24 hours. Lower pressure then causes cold air to rush toward the ground and warmer air to rise. This isn't to say the weather service doesn't have fun saying "bombogenesis" over and over and over again. They're meteorologists, but hey, they're people too.
9. Once the blizzard's over, we're cool, right? Nope. Arctic air is going to continue to barrel through the northeast into February, keeping temperatures well below normal. As for the upper Midwest, where it's usually only slightly more comfortable than the planet Neptune (-378°F, with a likelihood of graphite hailstones) around this time of year: Nice and mild.
10. If I have kids, is there any chance at all that I won't hear them singing the score from Frozen while we're all trapped in the house together for the next 48 hours? No. None at all. Deal with it—and don't watch The Shining. It will only give you ideas.