We report a solar coronal split-band type II radio burst that was observed on 2016 March 16 with the Gauribidanur Radio Spectro-Polarimeter (GRASP) in the frequency range $\approx$\,90\,-\,50 MHz, and the Gauribidanur RadioheliograPH (GRAPH) at two discrete frequencies, viz. 80 MHz and 53.3 MHz. Observations around the same epoch in extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) and white-light show that the above burst was associated with a flux rope structure and a coronal mass ejection (CME), respectively. The combined height-time plot generated using EUV, radio, and whitelight data suggest that the different observed features (i.e. the flux rope, type II burst and the CME) are all closely associated. We constructed an empirical model for the coronal electron density distribution ($N_{e}(r)$, where $r$ is the heliocentric distance) from the above set of observations themselves and used it to estimate the coronal magnetic field strength ($B$) over the range of $r$ values in which the respective events were observed. The $B$ values are consistent with each other. They vary as $B(r)\,=\,2.61 \times r^{-2.21}$ \textrm{G} in the range $r \approx$\,1.1\,-\,2.2$\rm R_{\odot}$. As far as we know, similar `direct' estimates of $B$ in the near-Sun corona without assuming a model for $N_{e}(r)$, and by combining co-temporal set of observations in two different regions (radio and whitelight) of the electromagnetic spectrum, have rarely been reported. Further, the present work is a novel attempt where the characteristics of a propagating EUV flux rope structure, considered to be the signature of a CME close the Sun, have been used to estimate $B(r)$ in the corresponding distance range.

Dispersive delays due to the Solar wind introduce excess noise in high-precision pulsar timing experiments, and must be removed in order to achieve the accuracy needed to detect, e.g., low-frequency gravitational waves. In current pulsar timing experiments, this delay is usually removed by approximating the electron density distribution in the Solar wind either as spherically symmetric, or with a two-phase model that describes the contributions from both high- and low-speed phases of the Solar wind. However, no dataset has previously been available to test the performance and limitations of these models over extended timescales and with sufficient sensitivity. Here we present the results of such a test with an optimal dataset of observations of pulsar J0034-0534, taken with the German stations of LOFAR. We conclude that the spherical approximation performs systematically better than the two-phase model at almost all angular distances, with a residual root-mean-square (rms) given by the two-phase model being up to 28% larger than the result obtained with the spherical approximation. Nevertheless, the spherical approximation remains insufficiently accurate in modelling the Solar-wind delay (especially within 20 degrees of angular distance from the Sun), as it leaves timing residuals with rms values that reach the equivalent of 0.3 microseconds at 1400 MHz. This is because a spherical model ignores the large daily variations in electron density observed in the Solar wind. In the short term, broadband observations or simultaneous observations at low frequencies are the most promising way forward to correct for Solar-wind induced delay variations.

We estimated the coronal magnetic field strength ($B$) during the 23 July 2016 coronal mass ejection (CME) event using i) the flux rope structure of the CME in the whitelight coronagraph images and ii) the band splitting in the associated type {\sc II} burst. No models were assumed for the coronal electron density ($N(r)$) used in the estimation.The results obtained using the above two independent methods correspond to different heliocentric distances ($r$) in the range $\approx$\,2.5\,--\,4.5$\rm R_{\odot}$, but they show excellent consistency and could be fitted with a single power-law distribution of the type $B(r)=5.7r^{-2.6}$ \textrm{G}, which is applicable in the aforementioned distance range. The power law index i.e. $-2.6$) is in good agreement with the results obtained in previous studies by different methods.