The only longer term proxy data that is associated with irradiance that I'm aware of is Solanki's sunspot reconstruction, but that only goes back ~11,000 years, and is not per year. Per year is impossible for deep time proxies except as you mentioned. Tree-rings, ice cores, varves, and speleothems are mainly Quaternary. Beryllium-10 back to Plio-Pleistocene is said to be possible.

Thank you Carol. Per year data is not needed. Can the Be-10 method can go back to earlier scale?

The half-live of 10Be is only 1.5 Million years, so 10Be produced millions of years ago won't have survived. As far as I am aware, the only way to get at irradiance changes through long timescales is from modeling the physics of the sun, which of course only tells us the very long term average trajectory. The sun has brightened about 30% over the last 4 billion years, according to such estimates.

I confirm the answer of Carol Griggs and Eric Steig. An added bias with Be10 is its residence time and mode of trapping in the sediment or ice : Concentrations are measured, not fluxes per unit of time. No chance with present technologies to follow sun activity over hundreds of millions years, except as statistical information from equivalent stars and their modelling.

For deep time paleoclimate data kindly see the attachment for references and short notes

This attachment is not referenced - and to my eye is probably not peer reviewed. By all means take what you can from it -there is some useful background - but be careful. For sound authoritative guidance you may want to explore works by Robert A Berner. There was also a useful review of the celestial driver published in GSA Today in July 2003 by Shaviv and Veizer

Dear Gong: Laskar 2004 has a very good dataset for the past 100 Ma with a sampling resolution of 100 years. Go through the link and explore. If you need more help let me know.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/insola/earth/online/

Hi, everyone! Thanks so much!

I am interested in seed plants evolution. One paper by PALMER told me the seed plants appeared at about 350 ma in Paleozoic's Carboniferous. Therefore, the solar irradiance reaching lands is what I want to have, rather than the solar irradiance amount Earth outside the atmosphere. I think the chemical component is also affecting the solar irradiance reaching lands, such as H2O, O2, and CO2.

Many studies had drawn graphs to express the CO2 levels over the past millions of years. I want to cite data sets to draw a graph to see whether the light irrradiance on lands increased during the evolution prosess of seed plants. So, I want to have these data.

I clipped one graph as an example to show the CO2 variation. If I had the solar irradiance data, I can draw my graph.

Thanks.

Guillaume, your second paper is useful for me. At least, I can cite that paper to validate the increases of solar irradiance over the past millions of years.

I was reading some articles recently and there were graphs indicating that the

Planets average temperature has fluctuated between and average of 9 C and

24 to 26 C several times during the last 540 million years.

A gradual increase in Solar Irradiance can not account for the swings in temperature

on a planet wide scale in multi-million year time blocks.

The key concept must be the height, density, and composition of the Atmosphere

that affects how much Solar Irradiance is trapped in the Atmosphere, and how much is reflected or lost by other means to space.

The non-weighted average is 17.5 C, but the weighted average would be

around 15 C, which is similar to what it is today.

One of the things I have been working on for the last 12 years is growth and expansion of the Earth, and how a planet could remain within a narrow surface life sustaining temperature range for roughly 630 million years, while growing larger,

gaining mass, gaining surface gravity, releasing excess water to the surface, and releasing excess gasses to form and sustain an atmosphere.

I am leaning toward a sequence of pulsed expansions of the Earth that increase

surface area, but, decrease height and density of the Atmosphere by a relatively

small amounts. After a pulsed expansion, the planet releases more water and gassed so the temperatures that plunged with each pulse gradually recover as the

atmospheric height and density increases.

Because the pulsed expansions occur infrequently, the recovery time to reestablish

temperature and pressure can be 5 million to 20 million years or more. Ocean levels

also recover during the period between pulsed expansions.

If pulsed expansion become delayed, the pressures and temperature rise

excessively toward 24 to 26 C, but during that time period, Earth builds up

excessive internal pressures which when released result in excessive

expansions, dropped sea levels, thin atmospheres, rapid planetary temperature decreases, and mass extinction events.

Reefs die during the periods of lowered sea levels, and acidic ocean conditions.

It is a work in progress.

Gaining mass.....please explain....?

The easy answer would be continued accretion of materials from space.

However, my calculations indicate that the accretion of the materials that

make up the crust of the Earth only account for 0.4% of Earth's Mass and

0.6% of Earth's Volume, so accretion can not account for the actual

total increase or annual increase in Earth's mass.

This leaves mass increase of planets occurring internally by a conversion of

"energy" to mass through " pair production " from things like Neutrinos passing

thru the planet. The vast majority simply pass thru the planet and exit the other

side unchanged, but a small percentage collide with matter inside the Earth,

and create new mass ( quarks etc ) . Matter has attributes such as the ability

to exert a gravitational force on its neighbors, accumulate, be visible, increase a planets volume, density, surface area, radius, mass, and gravitational attraction.

Energy ( photons, gama rays, x rays........) all have certain attributes such as

moving fast, having high frequency, exerting little if any gravitational force,

and are very small in volume, so it can be considered as unified into

individual Quanta. The flip side of energy is matter. It moves slowly,

has low frequency, it exerts a gravitational force, and occupies a larger volume,

and comes in pairs of opposite polarity, and thus it has mass.

Matter can be converted to energy inside stars and black holes.

Energy can be converted to matter inside planets and small objects.

This makes it a closed system ( essentially )

If you line up planets and stars is size order, they are gap graded, meaning

there are lots of small objects, but as the objects get larger, there are

larger and larger gaps between the physical sizes of small planets, and larger planets, and between larger planets and gas giants, and between gas giants,

and stars.....etc.. This is a byproduct of planetary growth where the radius

of a planet follows an exponential growth curve. Two planets of significantly

different sizes can have vastly different growth rates.

The Earth about 252 million years ago entered a visibly enhanced rate of accelerating planetary growth. To accompany that growth, there was a pronounced increase in the planets surface area ( ocean basins ), and a pronounced out gassing and out watering ( fractional distillation ) of the planet. To accompany this the planet had a significant increase in surface gravity ( animal sizes diminished significantly because of the structural limitations of bone and muscles ). Really big animals with long necks and long limbs are no longer possible. This is a limit of the "strength of materials " issue that has been known since the late 1800's.

The conundrum that I have wondered about is how can a planet grow larger,

gain mass, gain surface gravity, compress its atmosphere, change volume of

the water, change volume of the atmosphere, and still keep the planet

within the life sustaining average temperature range of 9 C to 26 C, and do

it in a sustained fashion for the last 630 million years? Why did the Earth

not either Freeze out life, or Broil out life while it was undergoing so many

changes???? There must be some limiting " out gassing " factor that

limits how thick the atmosphere can become. Maybe the solar wind ???

Maybe tilt angle changes, or Hadley cell changes ? Maybe life itself changes

to use up available resources and change the climate to limit the total

temperature variation.

I am sure this will not remain a conundrum forever.

So - the "easy answer" is by your own admission wrong - leaves you with this "nuclear assimilation" model - am I correct?

Plenty of long necked animals evolved post 252Ma - frankly - all the long necked animals did - prior to 252Ma biggest animal on land were early-reptiles.

Good luck with your thesis...