Direct Observation of A Large-scale CME Flux Rope Event Arising from an Unwinding Coronal Jet
Hechao Chen, Jiayan Yang, Junchao Hong, Haidong Li, Yadan Duan
aa r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . S R ] F e b Draft version March 1, 2021
Typeset using L A TEX manuscript style in AASTeX62
Direct Observation of A Large-scale CME Flux Rope Event Arising from an Unwinding Coronal Jet
Hechao Chen,
1, 2
Jiayan Yang,
2, 3
Junchao Hong,
2, 3
Haidong Li,
2, 3 and Yadan Duan
2, 3, 4 School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, 100871 Beijing, People’s Republic of China Yunnan Observatories,Chinese Academy of Sciences, 396 Yangfangwang, Guandu District, Kunming, 650216, China Center for Astronomical Mega-Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing,100012, China University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19A Yuquan Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing 100049, China (Accepted February 10, 2021)
Submitted to ApJABSTRACTCoronal mass ejections (CMEs) and coronal jets are two types of common solar erup-tive phenomena, which often independently happen at different spatial scales. In thiswork, we present a stereoscopic observation of a large-scale CME flux rope arising froman unwinding blowout jet in a multipolar complex magnetic system. Based on a multi-band observational analysis, we find that this whole event starts with a small filamentwhose eruption occurs at a coronal geyser site after a series of homologous jets. Aidedby magnetic field extrapolations, it reveals that the coronal geyser site forms abovean elongate opposite-polarity interface, where the emergence-driven photospheric fluxcancellation and repetitive reconnection are responsible for those preceding recurrentjets and also contribute to the ultimate filament destabilization. By interacting with
Corresponding author: Hechao [email protected]
Chen et al. overlying fields, the erupting filament breaks one of its legs and results in an unwind-ing blowout jet. Our estimation suggests that around 1.4 − Keywords:
Solar activity (1475), Solar coronal mass ejections (310), Solar magneticreconnection (1504) INTRODUCTIONCoronal mass ejections (CMEs) are the most violent eruptive magnetic activities in the solar at-mosphere. They often appear as stellar-sized magnetized plasma bubbles in white-light coronagraphobservations, and can rapidly release a vast amount of mass and energy into the inner heliospheremaking our near-earth space a hazardous place (e.g., Chen 2011; Schmieder et al. 2013). To date,almost all CME theories suggested that the core of CMEs correspond to rapidly erupting magneticflux ropes (MFRs) (e.g., Forbes 2000; Lin & Forbes 2000). As the desirable progenitor of CME fluxropes, an MFR is defined as a set of highly coherent helical magnetic field lines winding around onecommon axis. In such a non-potential topology, a mature MFR often appears with high storage ofmagnetic free energy and helicity, and is prone to suffer ideal MHD instabilities. Hence, the presentof a mature MFR prior to or even during CME initiations is always given great attention.In the past two decades, a lot of effort has been made in numerical simulations and observa-tions on the formation and destabilization of active-region MFRs (see reviews i.e. Cheng et al. 2017;Georgoulis et al. 2019; Patsourakos et al. 2020). One important reason is that active-region MFR
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE
Chen et al. tied to magnetic coupling and instability in the whole magnetic flux system (Antiochos et al. 1999;Wang et al. 2007, 2015; van Driel-Gesztelyi et al. 2008; Schrijver et al. 2013; Zhou et al. 2020).In addition, multipolar complex magnetic systems often breed frequent sympathetic eruptive events(Moon et al. 2003; Jiang et al. 2008, 2011; T¨or¨ok et al. 2011; Schrijver & Title 2011). Under such acommon dome of magnetic flux system, a preceding filament eruption can easily weaken the magneticconstraint overlying other filaments and thus trigger sympathetic CMEs (e.g., Yang et al. 2012, 2015;Shen et al. 2012; Joshi et al. 2016; Hou et al. 2020). In particular, several observations reportedthat in helmet-streamer configurations, coronal jets can also drive streamer-puff (Bemporad et al.2005; Moore & Sterling 2007; Panesar et al. 2016) or narrow CMEs (e.g., Wang & Sheeley 2002;Nistic`o et al. 2009; Hong et al. 2011; Joshi et al. 2020), supporting a physically link exist betweenthese two types of eruptive phenomena. Recently, Panesar et al. (2016) found that a series of coronaljets occurring at the edge of the AR 12192 resulted in homogenous bubble-shaped CMEs. Based onthe the release of magnetic twist from jet-base field into large-scale coronal loops and related coronaldimming during the jet eruptions, they infer that the jet-guiding coronal loops eventually blowed outas low-speed CME bubbles due to increasing twist.In this paper, we study the initiation of an Earth-directed CME from a multipolar complex magneticsystem, in which a large-scale CME flux rope event is found to arise from an unwinding coronal jetvia magnetic coupling. With multi-wavelength and stereoscopic observations from Solar DynamicsObservatory (SDO, Pesnell et al. 2012) and
Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatories (STEREO),this work presents a direct observation for the creation of a large-scale MFR by rapid twist transformin unwinding jet spire, and sheds some light on the complex magnetic coupling in large-scale CMEinitiations. The layout of the remaining paper is as follows: Section 2 gives the data and methods;Section 3 presents the observational analysis and results; Section 4 presents the conclusion anddiscussion. DATA AND METHODSMulti-wavelength EUV imaging data obtained from Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA)(Lemen et al. 2012) on board SDO and H α center images from the Global Oscillation Network AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE
Reuven Ramaty High En-ergy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI; Lin et al. 2002) and the Nancay radio heliograph (NRH;Kerdraon & Delouis 1997) are also used. The solar rotation of all these solar disk imaging data wasremoved through registering to a proper reference moment (09:30 UT). In addition, the CME andassociated phenomena are detected from the inner to the outer corona with the combination obser-vations from the Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO; Brueckner et al. 1995) onboard the
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI; Wuelser et al.2004) on board STEREO-A and B.Based on the Active Region Patches (SHARPs; Bobra et al. 2014) vector field products of AR11515, the photospheric vertical electric current ( J z ) in source region is computed from the directobserved horizontal field according to the Ampere’s law: ~J z = µ ( ▽ × ~B ) z . To reveal the pre-eruptionmagnetic field configuration, we “pre-processed” CEA vector magnetograms to best suit the force-freecondition, and then used them as the photospheric boundary to conduct a series of NLFFF magneticfield modelling with weighted optimization method (Wheatland et al. 2000; Wiegelmann 2004).With these NLFFF and PF magnetic extrapolation modelings, coronal magnetic free energy ( E f )can be computed within a certain volume V as follow: E f = R V B N π dV − R V B P π dV , where the subscripts N ( P ) denotes NLFFF(PF) extrapolated magnetic field (Sun et al. 2012). In addition, newly-injectedmagnetic energy from the below photosphere is also estimated from the energy (Poynting) flux thatcross the photospheric surface as follow (Liu & Schuck 2012): dE in dt = π R S B t V ⊥ n dS − π R S ( B t · V ⊥ t ) B n dS, where the emerge term (first term) comes from the emergence of magnetic tubes fromthe solar interior, and the shear term (second term) is generated by shear motions on the solar surface. OBSERVATIONAL RESULTSThe multipolar flux magnetic system that bred the solar eruptive event of our interest consistsof two inter-coupled ARs (NOAA 11514 and 11515) (see Figure 1(b)). As shown in Figure 1(a),the major flare (SOL2012-07-02T10:48) belongs to a short-duration one, which started, peaked, and
Chen et al. −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 GO ES X − r a y ( W m − ) M5.6 C1.81 2 3 41 2 3 4FE 0304Å1600Å 10 A I A f l u x ( DN s − ) (a) −400 −200 0 200 400 600 800X (arcsec)−1000−800−600−400−200 Y ( a r cs e c ) The eruptive event
AR 11515 AR 11514 (b)
SOL2012−07−02T10:48 11:03 UT 94/335/193Å −300 −200 −100 0 100−300 −200 −100 0 100X (arcsec)−600−500−400−300 Y ( a r cs e c ) L1 L2 F1 (d) CME2 CME1 (c1) 12:48 UT LASCO/C2 CME2 (c2) 15:24 UT LASCO/C2 −300 −200 −100 0 100−600−500−400−300 −300 −200 −100 0 100X (arcsec)−600−500−400−300 Y ( a r cs e c ) P1P2N2 N1 P3N3 −300 G +300
L1 L2 L3 (e) Figure 1. (a) The temporal change of GOES flux in 1-8 ˚A and 0.5-4 ˚A, and the associated AIA flux thatcomputed in panel (d). The numbers orderly mark four preceding emission enhancements before the majorflare, which correspond to four recurrent jets before the main eruption. (b) The overview of the major solareruption (SOL2012-07-02T10:48). (c) Two related CMEs, in which CME2 is closely related to our study. (d)and (e): The overall magnetic environment of this event. Their FOVs are identical and denoted by the whitebox in panel (b). The related field lines, including “L1”, “L2”, and “L3”, are well traced by PFSS technique,and the former two can be observed from AIA 211 ˚A image; the green elliptical dashed line denotes “L3”,corresponding to a latter mentioned fan-spine configuration. The yellow box in panel (d) denotes the fieldof view (FOV) of Figure 3. Other features of interest are marked in each panel; see the text for details. rapidly ended at around 10:43, 10:48, and 10:57 UT, respectively. Previously, Louis et al. (2014)
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE P N P N
2, and P N
3. As two bundles of high-lying coronal loops, L N P
2, while L P /P L P N L L
2, a small solar filament(F1) a length of ∼
45 Mm resided in a newly emerged magnetic system ( P N L P N
1. Within this system, thefilament structure of F1 is mainly constrained by a bundles of arch loops (yellow lines) that connects P N
1. Accordingly, the maximum twist number of F1 is derived as − .
88 turns from theNLFFF extrapolation by the equation: T w = π R L αdl (Berger & Prior 2006). Meanwhile, near thenorth section of the filament structure, there exists a null-point-type configuration (blue lines, L N Chen et al.
NLFFF model @ top viewN2 P2P1 N1 N3F1L1 L3POS2 (NP)POS12−Jul−2012 08:10 −300 −200 −100 0X (arcsec)−400−350−300−250−200 Y ( a r cs e c ) −800 G +800 (a) −300 −200 −100 0 100X (arcsec)−600−500−400−300 Y ( a r cs e c ) RD193Å_08:59−08:57 UTExpanding L1 recurrent jets −70 DN s −1 px −1 (c) L1 L3 POS2 (NP)POS1 Mm side viewNLFFF model @ 3D viewangx=20angz= 0 (b) −120 −80 −40X (arcsec) S (e) High temperature −120 −80 −40X (arcsec) (d) jet
RHESSI 08:54−08:57 UT 12−25 kev (90,70,50%) space−time plot along S1 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 GO ES X − r a y ( W m − ) Main flareJ1 J2 J3 J4 F il a m en t e r up t i on t he r i s i ng f il a m en t D i s t an c e ( Mm ) (f) Figure 2. (a) and (b): Selected field lines from the NLFFF extrapolation seen from a close-up 3D view, andits background is the B z map at Z = 0. (c): AIA 193 ˚A running-difference image presents the jet-inducedcoronal loop expansion. The red contour traces the recurrent jets that occurred at the footpoint of L
1. (d)The high temperature composite image of coronal jet, which blends 94, 193 and 335 ˚A images. (e) AIA304 ˚A image observed during recurrent jets. The FOV of (d) and (e) are denoted by the white dash box inpanel (c). (f) AIA 304 ˚A space-time plot along the green S1 in panel (e), in which the GOES 1.0-8.0 ˚A fluxis also plotted for comparison. Features of interest are marked in each panel; see the text for details. Ananimation of panels (c), (d), (e), and (f) is available. The animation covers 06:30 UT to 12:30 UT with 60s cadence. The video duration is 14 s. analogous dynamics features suggest that these recurrent jets are homologous ones (e.g.; Chen et al.2015; Liu et al. 2018; Lu et al. 2019; Paraschiv et al. 2020).
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE N P N P
2, which is spatially coincide withPOS1. During 00:00 to 18:00 UT, N . × to 3 . × Mx, while the positive flux demonstrated a weak decrease from 06:00 to 12:00 UT (see Figure 3(d1).Moreover, along this canceling interface, enhanced vertical current flux density J z concurrently builtup with an elongated pattern (see Figure 3(a3)). The integrated curves of its unsigned verticalcurrent, I out and I in , both demonstrate an increasing trend during this 18 hrs (see Figure 3(c2)). Asresponses of recurrent jets, episodes of analogous flaring patches took place along the localized J z enhancement. These results support that recurrent jets were triggered by repetitive reconnection atPOS1 (e.g., Archontis et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2013).With the occurrence of recurrent jets, the highly-lying L GOES flux curve. From which,one can intuitively see that before its final eruption: (1) four preceding recurrent jets correspondto the four peaks in the GOES flux curves and source-region AIA fluxes (also see Figure 1(a)); (2)with the occurrence of recurrent jets, F1 displayed a quasi-static ascent. This indicates that suchpreceding flux peaks and recurrent jets might be considered as precursors for the imminent maineruption.As shown in in Figure 3(d1), during the occurrence of recurrent jets and the main eruption, thetime profile of magnetic free energy in source region underwent three obvious drops. Thereinto, theformer two respectively released 1 . × and 1 . × erg of free energy, while the last dropthat includes the main eruption released 2 . × erg of free energy. Meanwhile, mainly due to theemergence term of poynting flux, around 4 . × erg of magnetic energy was injected upward fromthe below photospheric surface and refilled such free energy decrease (see Figure 3(d2)).0 Chen et al. −360−340−320−300 Y ( a r cs e c ) Bz P1P2 N1 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60X (arcsec) (a1) −360−340−320−300 Y ( a r cs e c ) During J1 335Å07:05 UT (b1) un s i gned m agn t i c f l u x ϕ − ϕ + ϕ − units in 10 Mx ϕ + units in 10 Mx : M a i n f l a r e (c1) ϕ ( e r g ) ∆ E f ≈ −0.15 −0.13 −0.22 −6 −5 −4 GO ES X − r a y ( W m − ) (d1) magnetic free energy Bz E m e r g e n c e −500 0 500Bz (G) (a2) During J2 6563Å F1 (b2) : M a i n f l a r e Ι z_in Ι z_out [ A ] (c2) J z [ e r g s − ] [units in 10 erg] emerge term I n j e c t ed ene r g y [ e r g s − ] [units in 10 erg] shear term (d2) I n j e c t ed ene r g y Jz −4 0 4J z (10 −2 A m −2 ) (a3) DN s − p x − i n l og During J3 1600Å09:22 UT (b3)
Figure 3.
Close-up view snapshots of the evolving source region (in the yellow dashed box in Figure 1 (d)).(a1-a2): HMI B z . (a3): Vertical current computed at the photosphere. (b1-b3) AIA 335˚A , GONG H α ,and UV 1600 ˚A observations. (c1): The unsigned magnetic fluxes computed in the source region. (c2): Theprofile of integral unsigned current I zout and I zin in the cyan dotted box of panel (a3). (d1): Computedmagnetic free energy ( E f ) in the source region with time. (d2): Poynting flux cross the photospheric surfacein the source region with time. Features of interest are marked in each panel; see the text for details. Via interacting with its overlying NP configuration (POS2, see Figure 2(b)), the erupting F1 soonunderwent a rapid disintegration and triggered the M5.6-class flare (see Figure 4(a1)-(a3)). As aresult, typical signals of null-point reconnection, including a quasi-circular flare ribbon and a remotebrightenings, were detected around the main flare ribbon (e.g.; Masson et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2016;Li et al. 2018, 2019). As the filament disintegration proceeded, the north (also positive-polarity)feet of F1 remained line-tied at its original position, but its south feet appeared as an “open” jet
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE +− (a1) E j e c t a (b1) J e t s p i r e (c1) 10:47 UT (a2)10:59 UT (b2) 11:00−10:59 UT (c2) + New MFR11:05 UT (a3) + New MFR11:27 UT (b3)
S2S3 + N e w f ee t (c3) + t h P F L s (a4)94Å Rhessi 6−12 kev + t h P F L s Rhessi 6−12 kevRhessi 3−6 kev F l a r e r i bbon (c4) D i s t an c e ( Mm ) (d1) D i s t an c e ( Mm ) (d2) Figure 4. (a1-a3): The ascent and disintegration of the filament observed in AIA 1600 ˚A images. (b1-b3)and (c1-c3): AIA 211 ˚A images and running-difference 304 ˚A images. (a4) and (b4): Selected AIA 94 ˚Aimages illustrate post-flare loops that observed after the filament eruption. The first(second) post-flare loopsformed above(outside) the source region. (c4): A newborn flare ribbon observed in base-difference 304 ˚Aimage. (d1) and (d2): space-time plots made along S2 and S3 in panel (c3). The white dash box in panel(b1) denotes the FOV of panels in the top row. Features of interest are marked in each panel; see the textfor details. An animation of panels (b3), (b4), and (c1) is available. The animation covers 10:30 UT to 12:29UT with 60 s cadence. The video duration is 5 s. spire. Accordingly, the filament plasma rapidly ejected towards the southeast possibly along L Chen et al.
Compared with those preceding narrow and collimated jets, this unwinding jet can be characterizedas a so-called blowout jet due to its broader jet spire (Moore et al. 2010).Assuming the main axis of the unwinding jet spire can be regarded as a circular cylinder andits fine threads rotates rigidly, a rough twist calculation of such unwinding jet spire can be given(e.g.; Shen et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2012; Hong et al. 2013; Li et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2018, 2019). InFigure 4 (d1) and (d2), two space-time plots are made perpendicular to its jet spire (along the redslices S2 and S2 in Figure 4(c3)). one can see that rolling motions nearly perpendicular to the jetspire display as dark/bright strips, which last for 42 and 50 mins in (d1) and (d2), respectively. Bytracing and conducting linear fittings along these inclined dark/bright strips, the average rotationalspeed ( ν r ) of this unwinding jet can be estimated as 48.5 km s − and 38.2 km s − , respectively. Theaverage width of the jet spire (23.09 Mm and 21.40 Mm) is equal to its diameter ( d ). Accordingly,their angular speeds ( ω = 2 ν r /d ) along S2 and S3 are computed as 3 . × − rad s − (period 1758s) and 4 . × − rad s − (period 1494 s), respectively. So, the total amount of twist released inthis jet spire is roughly at 1.43 − − π . This result reaches an agreement withother previous twist estimation (1.2 − AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE (a) EUV wave (d) −250 0 250 500 750−1000−750−500−250 −250 0 250 500 750X (arcsec)−1000−750−500−250 Y ( a r cs e c ) (g) (b) (e) (h) (c) NRH 298MHz 75, 85, 95% (f) (i)
Figure 5.
Snapshots of the global eruption observed in (a-c): H α and AIA 304˚A images, (d-f): runningdifference AIA 211 ˚A images, and (g-i): NRH radio imaging observation at 298 MHz. Features of interestare marked in each panel; see the text for details. exist (see Figure 6(c1) and its animation). It must be pointed out that the creation of this newbornlarge-scale MFR accomplished at a relatively high coronal height, thus it soon erupt upwards.Figure 5 further presents this eruption process with a larger FOV. In H α observations, this erupt-ing large-scale MFR manifested as an obvious erupting filament against the solar disk, and rapidlydisappeared by the time of 11:25 UT (see Figure 5(a) and (b)). In running-difference 211 ˚A images,it is found that as the major flare triggered, an EUV wave propagated toward the south, which mightbe the coronal imprint of the first CME (CME1) (also see Figure 1(c1)). After the major flare, thelarge-scale MFR arose from the coronal geysers and slowly erupt toward southwest, which eventu-ally led to the second CME (CME2). This jet-CME coupling eruption needs to differentiate from4 Chen et al. the simple extension of coronal jets in white-light observations (Wang & Sheeley 2002; Hong et al.2011; Joshi et al. 2020) and other so-called twin CME events (Shen et al. 2012; Duan et al. 2019;Miao et al. 2019), because a newborn large-scale MFR was indeed created during the solar eruptionby the rapid twist transport from jet base to background fields.In particular, two unique features are found in the eruption of the large-scale MFR. First, as men-tioned before, the newborn south feet of the large-scale MFR showed an apparent “drift” toward thesouth in 304 and 211 ˚A imaging observations. This evolution behavior is also evidenced by simulta-neous radio imaging observations at 298 MHz from NRH, which corresponds to a computed heightof around 170 Mm above the photosphere based on coronal density model of Sittler & Guhathakurta(1999) and the plasma-density relationship ( f = 8 . × √ n e ). As energetic electrons are injected intoand filled its erupting volume, the feet of the newborn large-scale MFR were clearly imaged as a pairof distinct radio sources in Figure 5(c). Similar feet signatures of eruptive MFRs were also reportedby other previous radio imaging observations (e.g., Carley et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2020), but the feetradio source usually remain stationary. In this current observation, the north one remained station-ary at its spatial position, while the south one first appeared at around 10:55 UT, and demonstrateda south-orientated “drift” during 11:00 to 11:29 UT (see Figure 5(g-i)).Second, signatures of an extra flare reconnection was detected below the erupting large-scale MFR.As shown in Figure 4(b4) and (c4), by the time of 12:10 UT, a set of new post-flare loops (2thPFLs) formed behind the erupting large-scale MFR, bridging a newly-formed chromospheric ribbonand the main flare region. Accordingly, RHESSI sources was also detected at the loop-top of newpost-flare loops (see Figure 5(b4)), indicating the occurrence of particle acceleration. On the whole,the creation of large-scale MFR and the appearance of the 2th PFLs provide solid evidence for thisjet-CME coupling eruption. In the GOES flux, as shown in Figure 1(a), the associated X-ray emissionenhancement in 2th PFLs is also clearly detected as another an C-class flare. Together with the jet-driven M5.6-class main flare, this result supports that this coupling erption event involves two-stageof flare magnetic reconnection.
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE STA−EUVI −1200−800−4000 Y ( a r cs e c ) C D open spireclose field (a1) −1500 −1000 −500 0X (arcsec)−1200−800−4000 Y ( a r cs e c ) C D (a2) −1400 −1200 −1000X (arcsec)−600−400−200 Y ( a r cs e c ) m agne t i c t w i s t (c1) RD12:06−11:56 UT
STB−EUVI
CD 304Å (b1)
500 1000 1500X (arcsec)
CD 304Å (b2) −1400 −1200 −1000X (arcsec) (c2)
RD12:26−12:16 UT
STA−white light
COR1 (d1)
CME2 COR2 (d2)
CME2 COR2 (d3) STB−white light
COR1 (e1)
CME2COR2 (e2)
CME2COR2 (e3)
Figure 6.
STEREO observations on the newborn CME flux rope. The left part: The erupting filament inrunning-difference EUVI 304 ˚A image. Close-up view snapshots of fine twisted structures at the north feetof the CME flux rope are presented in (c1-c2). The right part: The corresponding CME captured by whitecoronagraph COR1 and COR2. Features of interest are marked in each panel; see the text for details.
With the aid of stereoscopy observations from STEREO, it becomes more evident in Figure 6 thatthe blowout jet first appeared along the high-lying loop L
1, and then the newborn large-scale MFRdisplayed as a giant prominence eruption with two feet rooted at the source region “C” (markedby black dashed box) and a remote region “D” , respectively. The distance between “C” and “D” spans more than 270 Mm. With a close-up inspection, one can even notice that an anti-clockwiserolling motion appeared in the north leg of the erupting large-scale MFR, which indicating an obvioustransfer of magnetic twist took place from the feet “C” to the another feet “D” (also see Figure 6(c1-c2)). In the right part of Figure 6, the white light coronagraphs from STEREO cor1 and cor2 wellrecorded its related CME. CME2 first appeared at 13:22 UT and successfully propagated to morethan 18 R s with a relative low velocity of around 300 km s − .6 Chen et al. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONCMEs and coronal jets are two types of common solar eruptive phenomena, which often inde-pendently happen at different spatial scales. The former are well-known for stellar-sized violentmagnetized plasma explosions and their potential capacity in causing hazardous space weather (e.g.,Chen 2011; Schmieder et al. 2013), while the latter, as ubiquitous smaller-scale eruptive phenomena,are best known for their important contributions to the heating and mass supply for the upper solaratmosphere (e.g., Tian et al. 2014; Raouafi et al. 2016; Samanta et al. 2019). In this paper, we studythe origin of a large-scale CME flux rope event arising from an unwinding coronal jet. Based on thestereoscopic and multi-bands observational analysis, we find that this whole eruptive event startedwith a small-scale filament within a multipolar complex magnetic system whose eruption first trig-gered an unwinding blowout jet and an M5.6 short-duration flare. Due to the subsequent release ofmagnetic twist from the jet base, a newborn larger-scale MFR was then created in the unwindingjet spire, with its new south feet exchanged to a remote site (around 270 Mm far from the jet base).Finally, this newborn large-scale MFR successfully erupt into the outer coronae driving a stellar-sizedEarth-directed CME, leaving another an C1.8 flare in its source region. On the whole, this eventhighlights the pathway of a real magnetic coupling process in the initiation of the Earth-directedCME, supporting the view that some large-scale coronal eruptive phenomena can originate from themagnetic coupling of different magnetic activities at various spatial scales (Wang et al. 2007, 2015;Schrijver et al. 2013).Despite that the release of magnetic twist phenomena are frequently detected in coronal jets(Curdt & Tian 2011; Shen et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2012; Hong et al. 2013; Moore et al. 2013, 2015;Li et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019) and filament eruption events (e.g.; Yan et al. 2014,2020; Joshi et al. 2018; Jiang et al. 2018), but their resultant consequence are poorly studied yet.This work provides a direct stereoscopic imaging observation on the creation of a large-scale eruptingCME flux rope in an unwinding coronal jet. Different from previous mentioned flux-emergence forma-tion mechanism (e.g., Fan & Gibson 2004; Manchester et al. 2004; Okamoto et al. 2008; Chen et al.2018; Yang & Chen 2019) and reconnection-cancellation formation mechanism (e.g., Savcheva et al.
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE − π . In the current work, the estimated rotationangle in the unwinding jet ranges from around 2.8 − π , which should be enough for the creation ofthe newborn CME flux rope.Before the occurrence of the blowout jet, repetitive reconnection triggered four obvious recurrentjets above an elongate enhanced J z enhancement between opposite-polarity converging flux ( P N
1) (namely at POS1 ). These recurrent jets demonstrate narrow jet spire and short lifetime,thus may termed as “standard” jets, while the blowout jet of our interest has a broader unwindingspire and triggered by a microfilament eruption scenario (Moore et al. 2010; Sterling et al. 2015).In their source region, flux emergence provided a continual injection of poynting flux and magnetic8
Chen et al. free energy for recurrent eruptions (see Figure 3(d1-d2)). On the other hand, flux emergence alsointroduced an emergence-driven canceling interface. As a result, reconnection between F1-containednewly emerged flux and pre-existing field happened, which weaken its constraint above the F1 at somedegree (Sterling et al. 2007; Yang & Chen 2019). Consistent with the result of Louis et al. (2014)and Sterling et al. (2016), these suggest that both flux emergence and its driven flux cancellationshould play a role in the onset of this whole magnetic coupling eruption.At last remark, two issues worthy of mention here. First, in order to fully understand such jet-CME coupling eruption events, the energetics and interplanetary effects of jet-driven CMEs shouldbe linked back to their jet base parameters in the future, especially the twisting effect of pre-jetfilaments. Second, it must be pointed out that this newborn large-scale CME flux rope in the presentobservation immediately erupt due to its higher formation height, despite that it actually createdalong an extended PIL . Therefore, whether this twist-transport formation scenario can apply toexplain the appearance of those long-term exited large-scale MFRs among inter-coupled ARs (e.g.,Zhou et al. 2019) remains unclear.The authors sincerely thank the referee for constructive suggestions and comments. H.C.C. thanksDr. Guiping Zhou for helpful discussions after the on-line seminar, “Frontiers in solar physics”,held by the Key Laboratory of Solar Activity of NAO. H.C.C. is supported by the National Post-doctoral Program for Innovative Talents (BX20200013) and China Postdoctoral Science Founda-tion (2020M680201); This work is also supported by the National Key R&D Program of China(2019YFA0405000), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 11633008,11873088, 11933009, and 11703084. REFERENCES See the online synoptic magnetogram: http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/synoptic/hmi.Synoptic Ml.2125.png.
Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., et al. 2000,ApJL, 529, L49. doi:10.1086/312444
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk,J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485. doi:10.1086/306563Archontis, V., Tsinganos, K., & Gontikakis, C.2010, A&A, 512, L2.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913752Aulanier, G., T¨or¨ok, T., D´emoulin, P., et al. 2010,ApJ, 708, 314.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/314Bemporad, A., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., et al.2005, ApJL, 635, L189. doi:10.1086/499625Berger, M. A. & Prior, C. 2006, Journal ofPhysics A Mathematical General, 39, 8321.doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/005Bobra, M. G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., et al.2014, SoPh, 289, 3549.doi:10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J.,et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357.doi:10.1007/BF00733434Carley, E. P., Vilmer, N., & Vourlidas, A. 2020,Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7,79. doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.551558Curdt, W. & Tian, H. 2011, A&A, 532, L9.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117116Chen, B., Yu, S., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2020, ApJL,895, L50. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab901aChen, H., Duan, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2018, ApJ,869, 78. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaead1Chen, H., Yang, J., Yang, B., et al. 2018, SoPh,293, 93. doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1311-8Chen, H., Yang, J., Ji, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887,118. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab527e Chen, H.-D., Zhang, J., & Ma, S.-L. 2012,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12,573. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/5/009Chen, H., Zhang, J., Cheng, X., et al. 2014, ApJL,797, L15. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L15Chen, J., Su, J., Yin, Z., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 71.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/71Chen, P. F. & Shibata, K. 2000, ApJ, 545, 524.doi:10.1086/317803Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics,8, 1. doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1Cheng, X., Guo, Y., & Ding, M. 2017, ScienceChina Earth Sciences, 60, 1383.doi:10.1007/s11430-017-9074-6Demoulin, P., Henoux, J. C., & Mandrini, C. H.1994, A&A, 285, 1023Duan, Y., Shen, Y., Chen, H., et al. 2019, ApJ,881, 132. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab32e9Fan, Y. & Gibson, S. E. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1123.doi:10.1086/421238Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 23153.doi:10.1029/2000JA000005Georgoulis, M. K., Nindos, A., & Zhang, H. 2019,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Societyof London Series A, 377, 20180094.doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0094Green, L. M., Kliem, B., & Wallace, A. J. 2011,A&A, 526, A2.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015146Guo, Y., D´emoulin, P., Schmieder, B., et al. 2013,A&A, 555, A19.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321229 Chen et al.
Guo, Y., Ding, M. D., Cheng, X., et al. 2013, ApJ,779, 157. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/157Hong, J.-C., Jiang, Y.-C., Yang, J.-Y., et al. 2013,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13,253. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/13/3/001Hong, J., Jiang, Y., Zheng, R., et al. 2011, ApJL,738, L20. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L20Hood, A. W. & Priest, E. R. 1979, SoPh, 64, 303.doi:10.1007/BF00151441Hou, Y. J., Li, T., Song, Z. P., et al. 2020, A&A,640, A101. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038348Isenberg, P. A., Forbes, T. G., & Demoulin, P.1993, ApJ, 417, 368. doi:10.1086/173319Jiang, C., Feng, X., Wu, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJL,771, L30. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L30Jiang, C., Feng, X., & Hu, Q. 2018, ApJ, 866, 96.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd08Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Hong, J., et al. 2011, ApJ,738, 179. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/179Jiang, Y., Shen, Y., Yi, B., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677,699. doi:10.1086/529417Joshi, N. C., Schmieder, B., Magara, T., et al.2016, ApJ, 820, 126.doi:10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/126Joshi, N. C., Nishizuka, N., Filippov, B., et al.2018, MNRAS, 476, 1286.doi:10.1093/mnras/sty322Joshi, R., Wang, Y., Chandra, R., et al. 2020,ApJ, 901, 94. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaf5aKerdraon, A. & Delouis, J.-M. 1997, CoronalPhysics from Radio and Space Observations,192. doi:10.1007/BFb0106458 Kliem, B. & T¨or¨ok, T. 2006, PhRvL, 96, 255002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.255002Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012,SoPh, 275, 17. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8Li, L. P., Zhang, J., Li, T., et al. 2012, A&A, 539,A7. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015796Li, H., Yang, J., Hong, J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 886,L34. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab564eLi, H., Yang, J., Jiang, Y., et al. 2018, Ap&SS,363, 26. doi:10.1007/s10509-017-3244-3Li, X., Yang, S., Chen, H., et al. 2015, ApJL, 814,L13. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L13Lin, J. & Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res.,105, 2375. doi:10.1029/1999JA900477Lin, R. P., Dennis, B. R., Hurford, G. J., et al.2002, SoPh, 210, 3.doi:10.1023/A:1022428818870Liu, J., Erd´elyi, R., Wang, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ,852, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa992dLiu, J., Wang, Y., & Erd´elyi, R. 2019, Frontiers inAstronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 44.doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00044Liu, L., Wang, Y., Liu, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844,141. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d56Liu, R., Liu, C., Wang, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725,L84. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/L84Liu, Y. & Schuck, P. W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 105.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/105Louis, R. E., Puschmann, K. G., Kliem, B., et al.2014, A&A, 562, A110.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321106
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE Lu, L., Feng, L., Li, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 154.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab530cManchester, W., Gombosi, T., DeZeeuw, D., et al.2004, ApJ, 610, 588. doi:10.1086/421516Masson, S., Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., et al. 2009,ApJ, 700, 559.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/559Miao, Y., Liu, Y., Shen, Y. D., et al. 2019, ApJ,877, 61. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a42Moon, Y.-J., Choe, G. S., Wang, H., et al. 2003,ApJ, 588, 1176. doi:10.1086/374270Moore, R. L. & Sterling, A. C. 2007, ApJ, 661,543. doi:10.1086/516620Moore, R. L., Cirtain, J. W., Sterling, A. C., et al.2010, ApJ, 720, 757.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/757Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Falconer, D. A., etal. 2013, ApJ, 769, 134.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/134Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A.2015, ApJ, 806, 11.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/11Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., et al.2001, ApJ, 552, 833. doi:10.1086/320559Nistic`o, G., Bothmer, V., Patsourakos, S., et al.2009, SoPh, 259, 87.doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9424-8Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B. W., et al.2008, ApJL, 673, L215. doi:10.1086/528792Olmedo, O. & Zhang, J. 2010, ApJ, 718, 433.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/433 Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Innes, D. E., et al.2015, ApJ, 811, 5.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/5Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L.2016, ApJL, 822, L23.doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L23Paraschiv, A. R., Donea, A., & Leka, K. D. 2020,ApJ, 891, 149. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7246Patsourakos, S., Vourlidas, A., T¨or¨ok, T., et al.2020, SSRv, 216, 131.doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00757-9Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin,P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3.doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3Prasad, A., Dissauer, K., Hu, Q., et al. 2020, ApJ,903, 129. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d2Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al.2016, SSRv, 201, 1.doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0260-5Savcheva, A. S., Green, L. M., van Ballegooijen,A. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 105.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/105Samanta, T., Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., et al.2019, Science, 366, 890.doi:10.1126/science.aaw2796Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012,SoPh, 275, 207. doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2Schmieder, B., D´emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2013,Advances in Space Research, 51, 1967.doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.12.026 Chen et al.
Schrijver, C. J. & Title, A. M. 2011, Journal ofGeophysical Research (Space Physics), 116,A04108. doi:10.1029/2010JA016224Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M., Yeates, A. R., et al.2013, ApJ, 773, 93.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/93Shen, Y., Liu, Y., & Su, J. 2012, ApJ, 750, 12.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/12Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Su, J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 735,L43. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L43Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Su, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745,164. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/164Su, Y. & van Ballegooijen, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 91.doi:10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/91Sittler, E. C. & Guhathakurta, M. 1999, ApJ, 523,812. doi:10.1086/307742Sterling, A. C., Harra, L. K., & Moore, R. L.2007, ApJ, 669, 1359. doi:10.1086/520829Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., & Panesar, N. K.2018, ApJ, 864, 68.doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad550Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., etal. 2016, ApJ, 821, 100.doi:10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/100Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., etal. 2015, Nature, 523, 437.doi:10.1038/nature14556Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., Liu, Y., et al. 2012,ApJ, 748, 77. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/77T¨or¨ok, T., Kliem, B., & Titov, V. S. 2004, A&A,413, L27. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031691 T¨or¨ok, T., Panasenco, O., Titov, V. S., et al.2011, ApJL, 739, L63.doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L63Tian, H., DeLuca, E. E., Cranmer, S. R., et al.2014, Science, 346, 1255711.doi:10.1126/science.1255711van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Attrill, G. D. R.,D´emoulin, P., et al. 2008, Annales Geophysicae,26, 3077. doi:10.5194/angeo-26-3077-2008Wang, J., Yan, X., Qu, Z., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839,128. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf3Wang, J., Zhang, Y., He, H., et al. 2015, ScienceChina Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 58,5682. doi:10.1007/s11433-015-5682-7Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Zhou, G., et al. 2007, SoPh,244, 75. doi:10.1007/s11207-007-9038-yWang, Y.-M. & Sheeley, N. R. 2002, ApJ, 575,542. doi:10.1086/341145Wang, Y., Su, Y., Shen, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859,148. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac0f7Wen, Y., Wang, J., Maia, D. J. F., et al. 2006,SoPh, 239, 257. doi:10.1007/s11207-006-0181-7Wheatland, M. S., Sturrock, P. A., & Roumeliotis,G. 2000, ApJ, 540, 1150. doi:10.1086/309355Wiegelmann, T. 2004, SoPh, 219, 87.doi:10.1023/B:SOLA.0000021799.39465.36Wuelser, J.-P., Lemen, J. R., Tarbell, T. D., et al.2004, Proc. SPIE, 5171, 111.doi:10.1117/12.506877Yan, X. L., Xue, Z. K., Liu, J. H., et al. 2014,ApJ, 797, 52. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/52
AGNETIC COUPLING ERUPTIONS IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE23