Dude? Why are you asking me? Go read the link from NASA. It says it in there.
“an altitude of about 12 miles (20 kilometers), temperatures during September were 29 degrees F (16˚C) warmer than average, the warmest in the 40-year historical record for September by a wide margin. “
Unlike you I actually did read it.
Uncommon but not unprecedented
This is the third time in the last 40 years that weather systems have caused warm temperatures that limit ozone depletion, said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist with Universities Space Research Association, who works at NASA Goddard. Similar weather patterns in the Antarctic stratosphere in September 1988 and 2002 also produced atypically small ozone holes, she said.
“It’s a rare event that we’re still trying to understand,” said Strahan. “If the warming hadn’t happened, we’d likely be looking at a much more typical ozone hole.”
There is no identified connection between the occurrence of these unique patterns and changes in climate.
Cyclical ice comes back as temperatures go down.
So then, why are you rejecting the word of scientists who say that global warming does not cause the ozone hole?
I don’t see how they could have made it any more clear.
If you read all the relevant posts you will get the gist of the dialogue which at present you don’t appear to have grasped it.
Pretentious word salad is never a valid response. I know you are caught between disagreeing with me and believing the science, but obviously you are willing to disregard the science in favor of disagreement. A man of science would agree with those who agree with science rather than to let their personal grievances get in the way of facts. You must see where that puts you. 
I’m glad you finally read the link and are incorrect assuming I had not.
Go ahead and try to find where I linked it to global warming. I started this conversation correcting Sam that it had to do with temperature. I never mentioned global warming because when I originally linked the story I read the article. Glad you caught up.
Quit assuming. You are wrong frequently when you do.
It is interesting how you accept the NASA scientists’ word on this matter when it agrees with your politics yet you don’t for climate change. Seems you pick and choose which words from experts to believe.
I am consistent in accepting their word for both subjects as both are within their area of expertise.
Oh the irony! You reject those same scientists on the subject of global warming.
Your self-righteous indignation is misplaced. There has never been a connection found between the Ozone hole and global climate change. The veracity of NASA is not the issue here.
Oh yeah? Can you cite a specific instance? Or is this made up like most of your other observations?
Oh, you agree with the NASA scientists on AGW? That’s great!
I never said there was a connection. What is in question is why you accept their expertise in one area yet you don’t accept their expertise in another area. Yes, the veracity I’d NASA is at issue for you. Are you claiming that the atmospheric physics of climate change are not within threat area of expertise?
How do you reconcile accepting their scientific position on one subject yet reject their scientific opinion on another subject?
Again … Can you cite a specific instance?
I agree with those things that they espouse that are not speculation. The rise in the average global temperature is not speculation, that’s data. The cause of that rise and where the trend will go in the future is speculation. Words like “if” “could” or “might” are not facts, they are speculation.
You are clearly trying to bait me to create an issue that does not exist. I suggest you move on.
You call it speculation. NASA calls it science.
“If” “might” and “could” are not science.
That is the language of science. Scientific papers are replete with those words.
The whole discussion is about global warming and you specifically brought this up in your reply to Samm about same.
