Space Weather's Climate Forcing

Established Earth's climate is driven primarily by the radiative balance between incoming sunlight and outgoing thermal radiation, modulated by greenhouse gases, aerosols, ocean circulation, and internal variability. The Sun's direct radiative lever is Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which varies by only about 0.1% over the 11-year cycle — roughly 1 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere before geometric and albedo factors reduce it to a few tenths of a W/m² of effective forcing. The mainstream assessment is that this direct TSI variation is too small to dominate decadal-to-centennial climate change (Gray et al. 2010; Lockwood 2012; Tinsley 2023).

Established Crucially, "the Sun affects climate only through TSI" is not the mainstream position, and this report does not treat it as a straw man to overturn. Modern climate models already include solar influences beyond bulk irradiance: spectrally-resolved ultraviolet variations that modulate stratospheric ozone and drive a "top-down" dynamical response, and — increasingly — energetic particle precipitation. Both are part of the standard solar-forcing recommendation for the CMIP6 generation of climate models (Matthes et al. 2017). The genuine scientific frontier is not whether the Sun-climate link exceeds TSI, but how large the additional, particle- and field-mediated pathways are, and whether any of them rises to the level of a climate forcing rather than a modulator of weather and seasonal circulation.

Contested The pathways reviewed here — galactic-cosmic-ray (GCR) cloud nucleation, the Global Electric Circuit (GEC), energetic particle precipitation (EPP), solar-wind-driven vorticity, and geomagnetic excursions — are sometimes presented as a unified "energetic coupling" framework that rivals greenhouse forcing. A recurring rhetorical move underlies that framing: because particle fluxes and electromagnetic inputs vary by far larger fractions than TSI, they are assumed to be climatically decisive. This inference does not hold on its own. A large fractional change in a tiny energy reservoir can still be a negligible radiative forcing; the relevant question is the absolute magnitude of the resulting change in Earth's energy budget, in W/m², measured against the other terms. This report therefore grades each pathway on its demonstrated magnitude and reproducibility, not on the size of its fractional variability.

Established The structure follows the proposed coupling routes: cosmic rays and clouds (§2), the global electric circuit (§3), energetic particle precipitation and the polar vortex (§4), solar wind and vorticity (§5), and geomagnetic excursions in deep time (§6). Section 7 places these candidates against the mainstream radiative-forcing budget, and §8 synthesizes what is solid, what is contested, and what evidence would change the grades.

Contested The hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays influence cloud cover — "cosmoclimatology," associated chiefly with Henrik Svensmark — is the most debated of the candidate pathways. GCRs are the dominant ioniser of the lower troposphere, and their flux is anti-correlated with solar activity (a stronger heliospheric field during solar maximum shields the inner solar system). The proposal is that this ionisation modulates aerosol nucleation, cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), cloud albedo, and ultimately temperature. The underlying microphysics is real and measurable; the contested step is whether it scales up to a detectable climate forcing. Three claims must be kept separate: (a) ion-induced nucleation can occur; (b) the freshly nucleated particles grow to climate-relevant CCN sizes; and (c) the resulting CCN change produces a measurable global radiative forcing. Evidence weakens markedly from (a) to (c).

2.1 The Proposed Mechanism: Ion-Induced Nucleation

Established Ion-induced nucleation (IIN) itself is well-demonstrated: ions lower the thermodynamic barrier to forming molecular clusters, and this is observed both in the laboratory and in the field. A historic objection — the "growth bottleneck," in which 1–2 nm clusters are scavenged by larger pre-existing aerosols before reaching CCN size (~50–100 nm) — was addressed by chamber work reporting that ions also accelerate the growth of clusters via electrostatic interactions (Svensmark et al. 2017).

Contested The reach of that result is disputed. The chamber demonstrates a mechanism under controlled conditions; translating a percent-level modulation of nucleation into a change in cloud cover and albedo over the real, aerosol-rich atmosphere is the unproven step. In most of the present-day atmosphere, CCN concentrations are buffered by abundant non-ion sources (sulfuric acid, organics, sea salt), so the marginal effect of GCR-modulated ions is small (Gordon et al. 2016; Gordon et al. 2017).

2.2 Forbush Decreases: Natural Experiments and Their Limits

Contested Forbush decreases — abrupt, days-long drops in GCR flux when a coronal mass ejection sweeps cosmic rays away from Earth — are used as natural experiments that isolate the ionisation signal from changes in irradiance. Some compositing studies report a small reduction in cloud or aerosol properties days after the strongest events (Svensmark et al. 2021); others, using independent satellite cloud datasets and larger event samples, find no statistically robust global cloud response (Calogović et al. 2010; Laken et al. 2012; Krissansen-Totton & Davies 2013). The result is sensitive to event ranking, the compositing window, satellite calibration, and multiple-comparison control, and the field has not converged.

Contested A specific number from this literature deserves careful handling. One analysis of the five strongest ionisation-decreasing events reported a transient change in net radiative balance of approximately 1.7 W/m² (median 1.2) (Svensmark et al. 2021). This is a short-lived anomaly derived from only five week-long extreme events over comparatively pristine ocean, and the authors do not scale it to a sustained climate forcing. Placing it beside the sustained ~2 W/m² forcing from industrial-era CO₂ — as popular summaries sometimes do — is an apples-to-oranges comparison: a transient, regional, multi-day pulse is not equivalent to a persistent, global radiative imbalance.

2.3 The CLOUD Experiment and the Null Literature

Established The GCR-cloud hypothesis is the rare climate question with a purpose-built laboratory test: CERN's CLOUD experiment. Its results constrain the hypothesis rather than confirm it. CLOUD established that ions assist nucleation but that, across most of the atmosphere, vapours such as sulfuric acid, ammonia, amines, and biogenic organics dominate particle formation, and that the ion contribution to global particle formation is modest (Kirkby et al. 2011; Dunne et al. 2016; Kirkby et al. 2023). Quantitatively, modelling anchored to CLOUD chemistry finds that the solar-cycle modulation of CCN is only of order 0.2–0.3% — far too small to drive a meaningful change in cloud radiative forcing (Gordon et al. 2017).

Established Independent analyses reach the same conclusion from other directions: the CCN response to GCR changes is estimated to be one-to-two orders of magnitude too small to matter for climate (Pierce & Adams 2009), and reconstructions of solar activity cannot account for late-20th-century warming through any cosmic-ray channel (Sloan & Wolfendale 2013; Gray et al. 2010). Recent reanalysis-based work continues to find at most regional, second-order GCR/cloud associations consistent with these limits (Kumar et al. 2023). A GCR-cloud section that omits CLOUD and this null literature is not a balanced review; included, they place the pathway at contested with a low climatic amplitude.

2.4 Deep Time and the Supernova Hypothesis

Hypothesis On geological timescales, the cosmoclimatology programme proposes that Earth's passage through regions of high supernova activity modulated GCR flux, cloudiness, and even marine biodiversity over the Phanerozoic (Svensmark 2022; Svensmark 2023). These correlations are intriguing and actively published, but they rest on reconstructed deep-time proxies with large uncertainties and contested causal direction, and they are not independently established. They are best read as a stimulating hypothesis, not as confirmation of the modern GCR-climate link.

Hypothesis A second proposed route, developed chiefly by Brian Tinsley, concerns not the creation of CCN but the fate of aerosols and droplets within clouds, mediated by the Global Electric Circuit (GEC). The circuit is real and quantified; its coupling to weather and climate is the unproven part.

3.1 The Atmospheric Electrical System

Established The Earth–ionosphere system behaves as a leaky spherical capacitor. Global thunderstorm and electrified-cloud activity charges the ionosphere to roughly +250 kV relative to the surface, driving a fair-weather vertical conduction current of order 2 pA/m² down through the atmosphere (Rycroft et al. 2012; Rycroft 2025). This current is modulated both by the solar wind (via the cross-polar-cap potential) and by GCRs (which set the air's conductivity), so a space-weather signal can in principle reach cloud altitudes through the circuit.

3.2 Electro-Scavenging and Its Proposed Climate Role

Hypothesis Tinsley's "electro-scavenging" mechanism proposes that space charge accumulating at cloud boundaries enhances the rate at which droplets collect aerosol and ice-forming particles, altering precipitation, cloud lifetime, and — through latent-heat release — storm dynamics. Parameterization studies report that even weak cloud electrification can measurably increase the rate at which droplets collect aerosol and ice-forming particles (Zhang, Tinsley & Zhou 2018).

Contested The leap from microphysical enhancement to climate forcing is not supported, and the strongest cautions come from the pathway's own literature. Tinsley's own assessment characterises the resulting cloud and surface-pressure responses as less than ~10% of their mean values — a modulation, not a driver (Tinsley 2022). Direct laboratory measurement of electro-scavenging finds the collection efficiency below what the theory predicts (Dépée et al. 2021). And the statistical signatures often cited as evidence (e.g. day-of-sector-crossing changes in vorticity) weaken or vanish once atmospheric autocorrelation is handled correctly (Edvartsen et al. 2022). The GEC is therefore graded plausible but unproven, and likely small and intermittent as a weather influence — and not established as a climate forcing.

Established Energetic particle precipitation (EPP) — solar protons and magnetospheric electrons entering the polar atmosphere — is the best-supported of the non-irradiance pathways, and the one most clearly entering mainstream models. Its chemistry is well-established; its surface-climate reach is real but conditional.

4.1 Chemical Forcing: The NOx/HOx Cycle

Established When energetic particles ionise the polar mesosphere and stratosphere, they generate odd nitrogen (NOx) and odd hydrogen (HOx). EPP is a major source of reactive odd nitrogen (NOy) in the polar winter middle atmosphere — in active seasons contributing up to ~40% of the polar NOy budget (the older claim that EPP supplies "~10% of global stratospheric NOx" is not well-traceable to a primary figure and is not used here). During polar night, this NOx is shielded from photodissociation, descends inside the vortex, and catalytically destroys ozone — the "EPP indirect effect," producing upper-stratospheric ozone losses of order 10–15% after strong events and persisting for months (Szeląg et al. 2022; Nesse et al. 2026).

Contested Model fidelity is itself an active issue: the CMIP6 solar-forcing dataset under-represented energetic-particle ionisation — a gap the CMIP7 solar-forcing effort is explicitly intended to close — which implies that model-based EPP impacts to date are, if anything, conservative rather than exaggerated (Funke et al. 2024).

4.2 Dynamical Coupling to the North Atlantic Oscillation

Contested The chemical chain has a dynamical consequence: ozone loss cools the polar stratosphere, strengthens the polar vortex, and — via downward wave–mean-flow coupling — favours the positive phase of the Northern Annular Mode and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), nudging a given winter's European weather. Fast pathways from EPP through mesospheric ozone to surface weather have been demonstrated on weekly timescales (Seppälä et al. 2025), and the EPP–climate literature is reviewed comprehensively by Nesse et al. 2026.

Contested The surface signal is conditional, not unconditional. The clearest EPP–NAO response appears essentially only in winters with an easterly phase of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, which gates the downward coupling (Maliniemi et al. 2016). It is a regional, seasonal modulation of winter circulation — a weather/seasonal effect — not a global radiative forcing.

4.3 The Strongest Pillar — and Its Bounds

Established EPP's maturity is reflected in its move toward operational seasonal forecasting and its inclusion in the CMIP solar-forcing recommendation (Matthes et al. 2017; Nesse et al. 2026). Contested Even so, its demonstrated effect is a conditioning of regional winter variability of a magnitude comparable to other internal modes — important for seasonal prediction, but not a re-writing of the global energy budget. This is the honest ceiling of the best-supported pathway.

Hypothesis In 1973 John Wilcox reported a brief dip in Northern-Hemisphere tropospheric vorticity a day or so after Earth crossed a heliospheric-current-sheet (sector) boundary. The "Wilcox effect" implies a rapid atmospheric response to the interplanetary magnetic environment.

5.1 The Observation and Its Replication Status

Contested The effect has been revisited with modern reanalyses and reported to persist in both hemispheres (Prikryl et al. 2009), and the same group has extended it to the influence of solar-wind high-speed streams on extratropical cyclones and heavy precipitation (Prikryl & Rušin 2023). The central caution is replication breadth: the modern positive results come predominantly from a single research group, and there is little independent confirmation of the solar-wind/vorticity link. Where the related Mansurov/sector-boundary signals have been re-examined with proper treatment of autocorrelation and effective degrees of freedom, the apparent significance is much reduced — and in at least one analysis a putative response appears before the sector crossing, pointing to an artefact (Edvartsen et al. 2022; Edvartsen et al. 2023).

5.2 The Auroral Gravity-Wave Hypothesis

Hypothesis The proposed mechanism is that solar-wind disturbances drive Joule heating in the auroral ionosphere, launching atmospheric gravity waves that propagate down to the troposphere and trigger conditional symmetric instability, intensifying cyclones (Prikryl 2024). The chain is physically plausible and there is independent evidence that the lower atmosphere can respond rapidly to solar-wind/GEC changes (Harrison & Lockwood 2020). But as a weather trigger rather than a climate forcing, and absent broad independent replication, it remains a hypothesis.

Contested Earth's magnetic field gates the particle inputs discussed above; when it weakens during an excursion, those inputs intensify. The geophysics of such events is sound; the catastrophist climate-and-extinction narrative attached to them is what the literature has pushed back on.

6.1 The Laschamps Excursion and the Adams Event

Established The Laschamps excursion (~41,000 years ago) is a real, well-dated event in which the geomagnetic field weakened dramatically and briefly reversed, leaving a clear spike in cosmogenic-isotope (¹⁴C, ¹⁰Be) production. A high-profile reconstruction tied this interval to environmental and biological change and named its onset the "Adams Event" (Cooper et al. 2021).

Contested The strong climate-and-extinction interpretation drew immediate, formal rebuttal. Two Technical Comments in Science challenged the dating, the magnitude of field collapse, and the causal links to megafaunal extinction and human behaviour (Hawks 2021; Picin et al. 2021), with a published author Response (Cooper et al. 2021, Response). Independent records also indicate that major cooling preceded the excursion, undercutting a simple field-collapse-causes-climate-shift story (Albert & Sirocko 2023). Modelling further shows that the largest ozone losses require a weak field combined with an extreme solar proton event, not field weakening alone (Arsenović et al. 2024). Laschamps is therefore best understood as an extreme end-member of geomagnetic variability — informative about the upper bound of particle forcing — not as a template for normal climate variability.

6.2 Archaeomagnetic Jerks and the Holocene

Hypothesis The proposal that smaller, centennial-scale "archaeomagnetic jerks" modulated Holocene climate is weaker still. Regional, non-dipole field spikes do not substantially change global cosmogenic-isotope production, so the proposed GCR-mediated climate link lacks a global mechanism (Nilsson et al. 2024). Notably, the originators of the jerk–climate idea themselves described the connection as "intriguing but tenuous" (Courtillot et al. 2007). Some geological case studies report field-weakening/climate associations while explicitly calling their own mechanism hypothetical (Kitaba et al. 2017; Hyodo et al. 2022).

Established Placing these candidates against the assessed radiative-forcing budget is what keeps the review honest. The IPCC AR6 assessment finds the total solar effective radiative forcing over the industrial era to be about +0.01 W/m² (range roughly −0.06 to +0.08), and explicitly rates any cosmic-ray/cloud climate forcing as negligible (IPCC 2021). For comparison, the effective radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO₂ alone is about +2.2 W/m², and total anthropogenic forcing about +2.7 W/m² — two orders of magnitude larger than the assessed solar term.

Established This does not erase the pathways above. The mainstream already incorporates the better-supported solar routes — spectral-UV/ozone "top-down" coupling and, increasingly, EPP — in the CMIP solar-forcing datasets (Matthes et al. 2017). What the consensus does not support is the elevation of the contested GCR and GEC pathways to climate-forcing status, or the omission of their measured magnitudes. Independent audits that attempt to maximise the solar contribution to recent temperature trends still cannot reproduce observed warming without the dominant greenhouse term (Lockwood 2012), and even studies emphasising solar influence frame it as a modulation on top of stronger forcings (Connolly, Soon et al. 2021; Ineson et al. 2015).

The Sun-climate relationship is genuinely richer than TSI alone — but the strength of the evidence falls off sharply along the weather-to-climate axis:

• Better supported (weather / seasonal): Established EPP chemistry (NOx production, polar ozone loss); Contested EPP modulation of a given winter's NAO (conditional on the QBO); the existence and quantification of the Global Electric Circuit.
• Contested, low magnitude (climate / radiative forcing): Contested GCR→cloud→global temperature (mechanism real, climatic amplitude small per CLOUD and the null literature); GEC as a sustained climate forcing; geomagnetic excursions as routine climate drivers.
• Hypothesis, awaiting replication: Hypothesis the solar-wind/Wilcox vorticity link and its auroral-gravity-wave mechanism (single-group, autocorrelation-sensitive); the deep-time supernova–biodiversity correlation; archaeomagnetic-jerk climate effects.

The core, defensible insight is that solar influence operates through more than irradiance, via particle and electromagnetic channels — a view the mainstream shares for the UV/ozone and EPP routes. The overreach is to grant the contested GCR/GEC pathways equal standing with greenhouse forcing and to omit their measured, small magnitudes.

What would change these grades. For the GCR pathway: a pre-registered, multi-group Forbush/SPE compositing analysis with a shared null model and explicit autocorrelation control. For the GEC and Wilcox pathways: independent (non-original-group) replication with specified controls (ENSO, QBO, volcanic aerosols, ozone). For EPP: continued reconciliation of the CMIP ionisation underestimate and out-of-sample seasonal-forecast skill. For all of them, the decisive test is the same — a demonstrated, reproducible signal that survives proper statistics and is quantified in W/m² against the other terms of the energy budget.

• This is a literature review compiled with AI assistance, not original analysis, and not a forecast. Evidence grades reflect the published balance of evidence as surveyed here and may shift as the field evolves.
• Several pillars rest on single-group results (the modern Wilcox-effect analyses; parts of the cosmoclimatology programme); broad independent replication is the missing ingredient, and its absence is itself a finding.
• Magnitude, not mechanism, is the recurring gap. Many of these mechanisms are physically real at the process scale; what is unproven is that they integrate to a globally significant radiative forcing.
• The treatment of deep-time and geomagnetic claims depends on proxy reconstructions with large uncertainties and contested causal direction.
• Where corpus papers were available only as metadata at the time of writing, claims were kept at the level the abstract and the secondary literature support; quote-level use awaits full-text ingestion.

Albert, J., & Sirocko, F. (2023). Evidence for an extreme cooling event prior to the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion in Eifel maar sediments. Quaternary, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat6010014

Arsenović, P., Rozanov, E., Usoskin, I., Turney, C., Sukhodolov, T., McCracken, K., Friedel, M., Anet, J., Simić, S., Maliniemi, V., Egorova, T., Korte, M., Rieder, H., Cooper, A., & Peter, T. (2024). Global impacts of an extreme solar particle event under different geomagnetic field strengths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(28), e2321770121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2321770121

Calogović, J., Albert, C., Arnold, F., Beer, J., Desorgher, L., & Flückiger, E. O. (2010). Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(3), L03802. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041327

Connolly, R., Soon, W., Connolly, M., Baliunas, S., Berglund, J., Butler, C. J., Cionco, R. G., Elias, A. G., Fedorov, V. M., Harde, H., Henry, G. W., Hoyt, D. V., Humlum, O., Legates, D. R., Lüning, S., Scafetta, N., Solheim, J.-E., Szarka, L., van Loon, H., … Zhang, W. (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21(6), 131. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

Cooper, A., Turney, C. S. M., Palmer, J., Hogg, A., McGlone, M., Wilmshurst, J., Lorrey, A. M., Heaton, T. J., Russell, J. M., McCracken, K., Anet, J. G., Rozanov, E., Friedel, M., Suter, I., Peter, T., Muscheler, R., Adolphi, F., Dosseto, A., Faith, J. T., … Zech, R. (2021). A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago. Science, 371(6531), 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8677

Cooper, A., Turney, C. S. M., Palmer, J., Hogg, A., McGlone, M., Wilmshurst, J., … Zech, R. (2021). Response to Comment on "A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago." Science, 374(6570), eabh3655. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh3655

Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., & Genevey, A. (2007). Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 253(3–4), 328–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.10.032

Dépée, A., Lemaitre, P., Gelain, T., Monier, M., & Flossmann, A. (2021). Laboratory study of the collection efficiency of submicron aerosol particles by cloud droplets – Part II: Influence of electric charges. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(9), 6963–6984. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6963-2021

Dunne, E. M., Gordon, H., Kürten, A., Almeida, J., Duplissy, J., Williamson, C., Ortega, I. K., Pringle, K. J., Adamov, A., Baltensperger, U., Barmet, P., Benduhn, F., Bianchi, F., Breitenlechner, M., Clarke, A., Curtius, J., Dommen, J., Donahue, N. M., Ehrhart, S., … Carslaw, K. S. (2016). Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements. Science, 354(6316), 1119–1124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2649

Edvartsen, J., Maliniemi, V., Nesse Tyssøy, H., Asikainen, T., & Hatch, S. (2022). The Mansurov effect: Statistical significance and the role of autocorrelation. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 12, 11. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2022008

Edvartsen, J. Ø., Maliniemi, V., Nesse, H., & Hatch, S. (2023). The Mansurov effect: Seasonal and solar wind sector structure dependence. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 13, 17. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2023013 Funke, B., Dudok de Wit, T., Ermolli, I., Haberreiter, M., Kinnison, D., Marsh, D., Nesse, H., Seppälä, A., Sinnhuber, M., & Usoskin, I. (2024). Towards the definition of a solar forcing dataset for CMIP7. Geoscientific Model Development, 17(3), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1217-2024

Gordon, H., Sengupta, K., Rap, A., Duplissy, J., Frege, C., Williamson, C., Heinritzi, M., Simon, M., Yan, C., Almeida, J., Tröstl, J., Nieminen, T., Ortega, I. K., Wagner, R., Dunne, E. M., Adamov, A., Amorim, A., Bernhammer, A.-K., Bianchi, F., … Carslaw, K. S. (2016). Reduced anthropogenic aerosol radiative forcing caused by biogenic new particle formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), 12053–12058. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602360113

Gordon, H., Kirkby, J., Baltensperger, U., Bianchi, F., Breitenlechner, M., Curtius, J., Dias, A., Dommen, J., Donahue, N. M., Dunne, E. M., Duplissy, J., Ehrhart, S., Flagan, R. C., Frege, C., Fuchs, C., Hansel, A., Hoyle, C. R., Kulmala, M., Kürten, A., … Carslaw, K. S. (2017). Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present-day and preindustrial atmospheres. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(16), 8739–8760. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026844

Gray, L. J., Beer, J., Geller, M., Haigh, J. D., Lockwood, M., Matthes, K., Cubasch, U., Fleitmann, D., Harrison, G., Hood, L., Luterbacher, J., Meehl, G. A., Shindell, D., van Geel, B., & White, W. (2010). Solar influences on climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 48(4), RG4001. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009RG000282

Harrison, R. G., & Lockwood, M. (2020). Rapid indirect solar responses observed in the lower atmosphere. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2241), 20200164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0164

Hawks, J. (2021). Comment on "A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago." Science, 374(6570), eabh1878. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh1878

Hyodo, M., Nakagawa, T., Matsushita, H., Kitaba, I., Yamada, K., Tanabe, S., Bradák, B., Miki, M., McLean, D., Staff, R. A., Smith, V. C., Albert, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Yamasaki, A., Kitagawa, J., Schlolaut, G., Gotanda, K., Tsumura, K., Inagawa, K., … Sugo, S. (2022). Intermittent non-axial dipolar-field dominance of twin Laschamp excursions. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00401-0

Ineson, S., Maycock, A. C., Gray, L. J., Scaife, A. A., Dunstone, N. J., Harder, J. W., Knight, J. R., Lockwood, M., Manners, J. C., & Wood, R. A. (2015). Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nature Communications, 6(1), 7535. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8535

IPCC. (2021). Chapter 7: The Earth's energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 923–1054). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009

Kirkby, J., Curtius, J., Almeida, J., Dunne, E., Duplissy, J., Ehrhart, S., Franchin, A., Gagné, S., Ickes, L., Kürten, A., Kupc, A., Metzger, A., Riccobono, F., Rondo, L., Schobesberger, S., Tsagkogeorgas, G., Wimmer, D., Amorim, A., Bianchi, F., … Kulmala, M. (2011). Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation. Nature, 476(7361), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10343

Kirkby, J., Amorim, A., Baltensperger, U., Carslaw, K. S., Christoudias, T., Curtius, J., Donahue, N. M., El Haddad, I., Flagan, R. C., Gordon, H., Hansel, A., Harder, H., Junninen, H., Kulmala, M., Kürten, A., Laaksonen, A., Lehtipalo, K., Lelieveld, J., Möhler, O., … Worsnop, D. R. (2023). Atmospheric new particle formation from the CERN CLOUD experiment. Nature Geoscience, 16(11), 948–957. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01305-0

Kitaba, I., Hyodo, M., Nakagawa, T., Katoh, S., Dettman, D. L., & Sato, H. (2017). Geological support for the umbrella effect as a link between geomagnetic field and climate. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 40682. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40682

Krissansen-Totton, J., & Davies, R. (2013). Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using MISR. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(19), 5240–5245. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50996

Kumar, V., Dhaka, S. K., Hitchman, M. H., & Yoden, S. (2023). The influence of solar-modulated regional circulations and galactic cosmic rays on global cloud distribution. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 3707. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30447-9

Laken, B. A., Pallé, E., Čalogović, J., & Dunne, E. M. (2012). A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 2, A18. https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012018

Lockwood, M. (2012). Solar influence on global and regional climates. Surveys in Geophysics, 33(3–4), 503–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3

Maliniemi, V., Asikainen, T., & Mursula, K. (2016). Effect of geomagnetic activity on the northern annular mode: QBO dependence and the Holton-Tan relationship. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 121(17), 10,043–10,055. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024460

Matthes, K., Funke, B., Andersson, M. E., Barnard, L., Beer, J., Charbonneau, P., Clilverd, M. A., Dudok de Wit, T., Haberreiter, M., Hendry, A., Jackman, C. H., Kretzschmar, M., Kruschke, T., Kunze, M., Langematz, U., Marsh, D. R., Maycock, A. C., Misios, S., Rodger, C. J., … Versick, S. (2017). Solar forcing for CMIP6 (v3.2). Geoscientific Model Development, 10(6), 2247–2302. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017

Nesse, H., Asikainen, T., Decotte, M., Funke, B., Harvey, V. L., Jia, J., Liu, H., Liu, H., Maliniemi, V., Partamies, N., Salice, J. A., Salminen, A., Seppälä, A., Stephan, C. C., & Vokhmyanin, M. (2026). Why is energetic particle precipitation important for climate research and seasonal forecasting? Surveys in Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-026-09946-7

Nilsson, A., Nguyen, L., Panovska, S., Herbst, K., Zheng, M., Suttie, N., & Muscheler, R. (2024). Holocene solar activity inferred from global and hemispherical cosmic-ray proxy records. Nature Geoscience, 17(7), 654–659. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01467-5

Pierce, J. R., & Adams, P. J. (2009). Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophysical Research Letters, 36(9), L09820. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037946

Picin, A., Benazzi, S., Blasco, R., Hajdinjak, M., Helgen, K. M., Hublin, J.-J., Rosell, J., Skoglund, P., Stringer, C., & Talamo, S. (2021). Comment on "A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago." Science, 374(6570), eabi8330. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi8330

Prikryl, P., Rušin, V., & Rybanský, M. (2009). The influence of solar wind on extratropical cyclones – Part 1: Wilcox effect revisited. Annales Geophysicae, 27(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-27-1-2009

Prikryl, P., & Rušin, V. (2023). Occurrence of heavy precipitation influenced by solar wind high-speed streams through vertical atmospheric coupling. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1196231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2023.1196231

Prikryl, P. (2024). Mesoscale weather influenced by auroral gravity waves contributing to conditional symmetric instability release? Advances in Science and Research, 21, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-21-1-2024

Rycroft, M. J., Nicoll, K. A., Aplin, K. L., & Harrison, R. G. (2012). Recent advances in global electric circuit coupling between the space environment and the troposphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 90–91, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.03.015

Rycroft, M. J. (2025). Some recent key aspects of the DC global electric circuit. Atmosphere, 16(3), 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16030348

Seppälä, A., Kalakoski, N., Verronen, P. T., Marsh, D. R., Karpechko, A. Y., & Szeląg, M. E. (2025). Polar mesospheric ozone loss initiates downward coupling of solar signal in the Northern Hemisphere. Nature Communications, 16(1), 748. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55966-z

Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 045022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J., & Svensmark, J. (2017). Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. Nature Communications, 8(1), 2199. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2

Svensmark, H., Svensmark, J., Enghoff, M. B., & Shaviv, N. J. (2021). Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 19668. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99033-1

Svensmark, H. (2022). Supernova rates and burial of organic matter. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(1), e2021GL096376. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096376

Svensmark, H. (2023). A persistent influence of supernovae on biodiversity over the Phanerozoic. Ecology and Evolution, 13(3), e9898. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9898

Szeląg, M. E., Marsh, D. R., Verronen, P. T., Seppälä, A., & Kalakoski, N. (2022). Ozone impact from solar energetic particles cools the polar stratosphere. Nature Communications, 13(1), 6883. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34666-y

Tinsley, B. A. (2022). Uncertainties in evaluating global electric circuit interactions with atmospheric clouds and aerosols, and consequences for radiation and dynamics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127(5), e2021JD035954. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035954

Tinsley, B. A. (2023). Solar activity, weather, and climate: The elusive connection. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 104(12), E2171–E2191. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-23-0065.1

Zhang, L., Tinsley, B. A., & Zhou, L. (2018). Parameterization of in-cloud aerosol scavenging due to atmospheric ionization: Part 3. Effects of varying droplet radius. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028840