My dad grew up in farm country in Iowa. He told me stories of the early days of commodity futures when a number of farmers lost a lot of money betting the wrong way. The error they made is that they would look at their local weather and assume everyone was experiencing the same. For example, some guy in Iowa would be experiencing a drought and facing a poor corn crop, and would buy corn futures assuming the crop would be bad everywhere. Unfortunately, this was often not the case.
A few climate sites have monthly contests to predict the next month's average global temperature anomaly. Apparently, everyone really missed in the January betting. Since most of the participants were American, they assumed that really cold weather in the US would translate to falling global temperatures. They were wrong. The global temperature anomaly in January actually rose a bit.
This is a variation of the same effect I often point out in the opposite direction -- that heat waves in even seemingly large areas do not necessarily mean anything for global temperatures. The US is only about 2% of the global surface area (land and ocean) and since the cold spell was in the eastern half of the US, it therefore affected perhaps 1% of the globe. And remember, on average, some area representing 1% of the globe should constantly be seeing a 100-year high or low for that particular day. It's just how averages work.
No particularly point here, except to emphasize just how facile it is to try to draw conclusions about global temperature trends from regional weather events.