You wrote:

You just don't listen. If the "conceptual page" you refer to is that atmosphere is lost to space, then I am pleased that we are on the same page. It is well documented and everyone around here with any scientific chops know it. We have said so many times. No one has disagreed with this.

I’m “listening,” and I’m glad that no one disagrees with the fact that the atmosphere of a planet can disappear or evaporate into space.

If you've been paying attention to the space boards, or mars exploration in general, there's a puzzle about mars' atmosphere. It deals with how much deuterium (heavy H) is in the air there. Deuterium is not statistically as likely to be lost from an atmosphere as lighter H. Assuming that the H on mars started out with the same approximate ratio of deuterium to lighter H as the rest of our neighborhood, then the current ratio of deuterium to lighter H can give you a means to calculate how much H it started with and how much H it lost. You can also make statements about how much water could have been on mars based on this ratio.

Noted and understood. thank you.

You say that the cause is the solar wind; I do not disagree with that, but you seem to imply that the quantity is extremely small…

Yes. Study by satellites has shown it to be small.

Could you point me to that study?

...and the solar wind is the only cause (or reason) for atmospheric loss.

Certainly the primary cause. There's an awful lot of energy from the sun hitting our atmosphere.

No argument there

There's comparitively very little else doing so. Maybe cosmic rays account for .001% or something like that. You'd need someone who worked in the field to come up with a reasonable number.

I will agree that if one “compares” the amounts, then other factors may have less significance.

I’m sure that you agree that the planets gravitational field… sure ...and the atmospheres temperature also have a large bearing on the magnitude of the atmospheric loss.

temperature? maybe. A wildly vibrating molecule is certainly not any lighter than a cold one. In any case, in the far upper reaches of the atmosphere it is very hot.

Could you elaborate on your understanding of heat or kinetic energy of the molecules in the upper atmosphere?
You seem to indicate that the vibration or back and forth motion of molecules constitutes heat even in the very thin thermosphere.

Would you consider the linear motion of molecules as heat?

Since the “hot” molecules are not any lighter than the “cold” molecules, why do the “hot” molecules stay in the upper atmosphere?

If we can agree on these basic assumptions, then we can study the phenomenon further.

There are people who do study this. None of them are you or me, though.

I certainly hope that there are many people studying these phenomenon.

You and I are simply expressing our own understanding of the phenomenon.

It seems that we do not fully agree on the basic assumptions yet, that is why the above questions.