Low temperature records overwhelm highs in the USA this past week – where's the media to tell us how this should be viewed?

Let me see: 1) this was predicted by warming models 2) this is weather not climate 3) this is regional not global 4) look over there; polar bears are dying and Greenland is melting

The stupidity of Peter Gorrie on full display.
Prentice is apparently an Investigator buff, and reviewed a book about its unsuccessful voyage last winter. Had the ocean remained frozen, the ship would continue to rest unseen, 11 metres below the surface.
Climate change will unseal many other Arctic treasures over the next few years. Most important — less romantic but incomparably more lucrative than an old boat — are oil and gas deposits.
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/843898–gorrie-arctic-discovery-confirms-impact-of-global-warming
I emailed Peter asking how “an old boat” got to where it did before “global warming”.
No reply.

Lot of hot air on the left coasts!

Warmer summers and colder winters is a world-wide pattern that started around 2000 and appears to be strengthening. As I have just commented in the Bob Tisdale thread, it shows up in the SSTs and troposphere temperatures, and arguably the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice summer versus winter extents, and NH winter versus spring snowfall as well.
Historical records show a similar pattern in the Little Ice Age.

Weather is not climate.
Unless it’s hot.

Baby its getting cold outside!! OH YEAH!!

@noaaprogrammer Over here in southwestern Washington State we had our first frost about two weeks ago. Earliest I remember in 20 years. This last week has been frozen every day in the morning. Saturday it was 31 F at 0830, by 1130 it was 65, hit 77 about 1530, and by 1800 it was 48. Been like that for a while. It’s been the coldest and driest October I ever remember. I was in grade school in the 70’s, so I remember the “Coming Ice Age” and the local weather subjectively seems to be trending back. My wife is a few years senior to me, and she says the same thing.

The MSM is telling us how this should be viewed. The are telling us it should be ignored.
They are wrong but that’s a different discussion.

I posted at Grist the other day, but upon returning it had disappeared.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/does-early-snow-disprove-global-warming/

This website (below) is really useful for seeing how record lows and highs stack up. The site allows you to search for specific dates and states. Though we absolutely are experiencing a cold snap throughout much of the U.S., the year-to-date totals show that highs are outpacing lows by a considerable margin.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

what on earth is this about?
9 Oct: Climate Spectator: Andrew Freedman: How temp talk could doom climate treaty
At the much-heralded climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, world leaders agreed to limit manmade global warming to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels…
According to a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, this seeming inconsistency is not just unsurprising: it was inevitable. By focusing on the two degree goal, negotiators inadvertently guaranteed their efforts would fail, because there’s no hard evidence that any specific temperature target marks a dangerous threshold, with clear consequences for crossing it (instead, there is plenty of evidence that more and faster warming entails greater risks of major consequences, such as the collapse of the polar ice sheets).
This uncertainty, the study argues, provides an incentive for countries to be free-loaders, jumping on board with the agreement without making potentially costly emissions reductions.
The main message, therefore, is that countries should not rely so much on the notion of a climate change ‘red line’, beyond which catastrophe could occur, as the basis for making emissions reduction commitments…
The study is based on results from a simulation game played by 400 students, who played the role of negotiators at a climate summit. Scott Barrett, a professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the lead author of the study, said that in practically every simulation, despite having a temperature target to shoot for, the players in the game committed to emissions limits that allowed the amount of planet warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to soar to what would almost certainly be “catastrophic” levels.
The problem, Barrett said, is that unless uncertainty about the threshold can be reduced to zero, individual countries have an incentive to do less than what would be required to avoid exceeding the threshold. In reality, this uncertainty can never be reduced to zero, Barrett said, because of the inherent scientific unknowns about what causes abrupt and catastrophic climate change.
If uncertainty could be reduced to zero, though, climate negotiations would be transformed from a classic ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, in which countries have a perverse incentive to do less than what is required in order to solve a shared problem, and into a coordination game, in which countries would work with one another to ensure they are making sufficient commitments to meet a collective goal…
“The purpose of all this research is to understand first of all why things have gone wrong,” he said. “You need a proper diagnosis of the illness before you order treatment.”
Barrett said negotiators should seek ways around the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, perhaps by designing a series of smaller agreements that target individual greenhouse gases, rather than trying to craft an all-encompassing treaty that sets emissions reduction goals for entire economies…
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/how-temp-talk-could-doom-climate-treaty