You said:
“Then is it forgetfullness?”

I do not fully understand what you mean by that comment.
I have not forgotten the vicious attacks that I received here simply because I suspected that the greenhouse gasses and the chlorofluorocarbons are not the only causes of global atmospheric changes.
I have not forgotten the numbers RL presented with such harsh emphasis, and his statement that it “cant” happen are firmly burned in my memory.
What have I forgotten?

“Or what did you mean by "finally" on the same page about loss of atmosphere?”

By “finally” I meant that we have reduced the conversation level to such simple concepts that it is difficult if not impossible for us to misunderstand or talk past, each other.

“……Wrong word.”
Yes the word escape would have been better.

Thank you for the link, it is very informative, even though there is no reference to effects that radioactive pollution may cause, or effects caused by nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere.

Snip

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

“Silly question. Why is it that there are only wet fish in the ocean? Why do the wet ones stay there? (and where do the dry ones go?)”

:-)) Funny, at this point we are “talking past each other.”
With this silly question I’m trying to understand how you define the physics involved in the phenomenon that causes hot air to rise, in other words, if the “weight” of the molecules stays the same, why does the hot air rise.