AHEM. Stratospheric cooling is a predicted and observed consequence of both ozone depletion (the primary cause) and global warming* (the secondary cause). So the record holes caused by colder stratospheric temperatures -- which was clearly stated in the link I provided -- are not (in any way) contradictory to the scientific understanding of both ozone depletion and global warming.
*Please reply if you don't know why and you would like it politely explained to you.
When information comes up that doesn't jibe with your beliefs on global warming and the ozone depletion theory you appear to ignore it and/or explain it away.
Any actual information that appears to contradict the scientific understanding of global warming/climate change I examine carefully, and this has nothing to do with "belief" of any kind. Rather than "explain it away", I seek to determine if there is either a proposed or actual explanation. Frequently, to the surprise/dismay/consternation of skeptics who are looking for support for their internally-biased POV, I find such explanations. This frequently bothers those who didn't expect that such an explanation might exist.
The year-to-year fluctuations of the ozone hole are not a problem for the scientific understanding of why it happens, nor are they a problem for the theoretical basis of anthropogenic climate change.
Whether or not you "believe" I am an honest broker of information on this topic is irrelevant to the fact that I am.
For an in-depth treatment of ozone depletion, you might try this:
Chapter 10: Pollution of the Stratosphere
Chapter 11: The Antarctic Ozone Hole
as is the information that has been reported in the past few weeks which calls into question the basic validity of the temperature measurements upon which the global warming theory is, at least in part, based.
The above is a nice example of bias. Jumping from the observations of a very small subset of weather stations, and without any examination of whether or not the data from a particular station or set of stations has a significant (rather than trivial) effect on global temperature calculations, you state with certainty that this "calls into question the basic validity of the temperature measurements upon which the global warming theory is, at least in part, based." (Whereas RealClimate says, "Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends)".
In the world of real science, there has not been enough data presented nor has a scholarly/scientific effort been made to elucidate the effects, let alone call the "basic validity of the data" into question. It is a typical pattern of skeptical thinking (on any subject) to seize upon the latest touted "refutation" of the theory to which one is opposed, without waiting for critical examination of it. This is what I suggest be done.
By the way, the link below explains what "global warming theory" is really based on.
The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps
You will find no reference in this simple explanation to global temperature measurements of any kind.
Yet another example of why I generally ignore your posts. If stratospheric cooling is a consequence of ozone depletion, then the reduction in CFCs should have led to an increase in stratospheric temperatures. The fact that a decrease has occurred should lead a reasonable observer to question why not?