Please read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351469478_What_Solar-Terrestrial_Link_Researchers_Should_Know_about_Interplanetary_Drivers

https://izw1.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/level3/icmetable2.htm

Perhaps this list will be useful to you

This might be useful as well: https://wind.nasa.gov/ICME_catalog/ICME_catalog_viewer.php

All the answers above are recommended. However, the only ICME-CIR list in the same time period (which guarantees some homogeneity of the data set) was, to the best of my knowledge, by the two papers of Jian&al (2006):

Jian, L., Russell, C.T., Luhmann, J.G. et al. Properties of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections at One AU During 1995 – 2004. Sol Phys 239, 393–436 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-0133-2

and

Jian, L., Russell, C.T., Luhmann, J.G. et al. Properties of Stream Interactions at One AU During 1995 – 2004. Sol Phys 239, 337–392 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-006-0132-3

We have used the datasets in the study of Solar–Terrestrial Coupling based on Wavelet Analysis:

Ch. Katsavrias et al./Advances in Space Research 57 (2016) 2234–2244: "A wavelet based approach to Solar–Terrestrial Coupling"

I hope it helps.

Alexander

PS: We did search, without success, for CIR data catalogues after 2004.

CIR (and sheath, ejecta, MC and other SW types) data for period 1976-2022 are in our catalog http://www.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni

All the answers above are refering to ICME catalogs, however, the questioner is looking for a catalog of geomagnetic stroms, which means a list of geomagnetic storms events. Many thanks

To the best of my knowledgem you need two (or three) separate lists, ICME, CIR and a ime series of DST or SYM-H values; you need to establish the association between storms and drivers by yourself...

Here is another listArticle Geoeffectiveness of Stream Interaction Regions From 1995 to 2016

Why do you think the Kyoto Dst index catalog is not "a catalog of geomagnetic stroms"?

In my first letter in this discussion, I already tried to draw attention to the fact that the author formulated the question incorrectly, since the author did not define the terms used, which do not have unambiguous generally accepted definitions. Conducting a discussion without agreeing on terms is extremely unproductive.