Update sattab assignments for MSG TYPE 005-099

[JingCheng-NOAA]

Description
Current code for sattab will only allow one type of swcm data read in.
The CIMMS AMV contains 6 types of SWCM. The change will allow all the method created data being read in.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

This Change has already been applied in 2025 HAFS-A realtime experiment.

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• New and existing tests pass with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

[RussTreadon-NOAA]

@JingCheng-NOAA

Please note the following from the GSI wiki

The Unified Forecast System (UFS) will use the Joint Effort for Data assimilation Integration (JEDI) for its DA infrastructure. JEDI components, as they mature, will incrementally replace operational GSI-based components.

Given this, the focus of the NOAA-EMC/GSI repository has shifted to operational support during this transition. NOAA-EMC/GSI only supports current and planned operational NWS realizations of the GSI. Changes to NOAA-EMC/GSI must have a clear path to implementation with agreement from operational GSI application leads.

Are the changes in this PR required for current or planned operational realizations of the GSI?

[JingCheng-NOAA]

@JingCheng-NOAA

Please note the following from the GSI wiki

The Unified Forecast System (UFS) will use the Joint Effort for Data assimilation Integration (JEDI) for its DA infrastructure. JEDI components, as they mature, will incrementally replace operational GSI-based components.

Given this, the focus of the NOAA-EMC/GSI repository has shifted to operational support during this transition. NOAA-EMC/GSI only supports current and planned operational NWS realizations of the GSI. Changes to NOAA-EMC/GSI must have a clear path to implementation with agreement from operational GSI application leads.

Are the changes in this PR required for current or planned operational realizations of the GSI?

@RussTreadon-NOAA
Yes, this is actually a bug we found in the read_satwnd.f90 when we compare the previous GSI and current GSI versions. And we traced it back to the PR#670 (#670), in which it starts to use look up table to assign satwnd observation types but missed the situation that for CIMMS AMV, all SWCM types should be counted as 241. Otherwise, the CIMMS AMV will only read in a small portion of data (IR winds related) and miss all the other types of data.
This PR will fix the bug and allow HAFS DA to use the same number of CIMMS AMV as the previous GSI version.

[RussTreadon-NOAA]

@JingCheng-NOAA , thank you for the explanation. Two related questions:

1. Will an accelerated RFC be submitted to get this bug fix into the current operational HAFS DA?
2. Will the next operational version of HAFS DA use GSI or JEDI?

[JingCheng-NOAA]

@RussTreadon-NOAA
Thanks for asking. The current operational HAFSv2.1 is using the previous version of GSI (a version that earlier than the PR#670), thus it is not affected by the bug.
The next upgrade will be HAFSv2.2 in next year (2026), and we are preparing to sync with the latest GSI dev branch, thus we will need this bug to be fixed.
And JEDI version HAFS DA will be HAFSv3, which is planned to implement in year 2027.

[JingCheng-NOAA]

@RussTreadon-NOAA , I am not familiar with the RFC, is there any instruction on what situation and how should I submit a acceleration request?

[RussTreadon-NOAA]

@JingCheng-NOAA . Thank you for the clarification. I mistakenly thought we were transitioning to JEDI-based HAFS DA in 2026.

If you submit any future requests to update NOAA-EMC/GSI develop, please follow the procedures outlined in

• GSI Code Management Policy
• How to Make Changes

For this PR you do not need to go back and create an issue. However, we do the GSI regression tests to be run on WCOSS2 and at least one NOAA RDHPCS machine with the results posted in this PR.

[JingCheng-NOAA]

Thank you so much! I will check the details.

[RussTreadon-NOAA]

@JingCheng-NOAA EMC implementations go through EIB. Who in EIB handled previous HAFS implementations? This staff member will be in the best position to answer your question. I know the global implementation process. I'm not familiar with the regional process.

[JingCheng-NOAA]

I see. Thanks for the further clarification.

[HuiLiu-NOAA]

Looks fine to me.

[RussTreadon-NOAA]

WCOSS2 ctests

Install JingCheng-NOAA:patch-1 at 9b2e1f6 as updat and develop at d471712 as contrl. Run GSI ctests with the following results

Test project /lfs/h2/emc/da/noscrub/russ.treadon/git/gsi/pr942/build
    Start 1: global_4denvar
    Start 2: rtma
    Start 3: rrfs_3denvar_rdasens
    Start 4: hafs_4denvar_glbens
    Start 5: hafs_3denvar_hybens
    Start 6: global_enkf
1/6 Test #3: rrfs_3denvar_rdasens .............   Passed  2095.25 sec
2/6 Test #5: hafs_3denvar_hybens ..............   Passed  2593.34 sec
3/6 Test #2: rtma .............................   Passed  2860.62 sec
4/6 Test #6: global_enkf ......................   Passed  2937.17 sec
5/6 Test #4: hafs_4denvar_glbens ..............   Passed  3232.30 sec
6/6 Test #1: global_4denvar ...................   Passed  3440.14 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 6

Total Test time (real) = 3444.57 sec

This is an expected result. The changes in this PR only impact GSI results when CIMMS AMV observations are present. None of the GSI regression cases contain this data in the input satwnd bufr file.

[ShunLiu-NOAA]

@RussTreadon-NOAA Thank you for ctests on WCOSS. @JingCheng-NOAA could you start a ctest on URSA?

[JingCheng-NOAA]

Here are the regression test results on URSA.
Test project /scratch3/NCEPDEV/hwrf/save/Jing.Cheng/GSIversions/GSI.amvswcm/build
Start 1: global_4denvar
1/6 Test #1: global_4denvar ................... Passed 1111.79 sec
Start 2: rtma
2/6 Test #2: rtma ............................. Passed 731.51 sec
Start 3: rrfs_3denvar_rdasens
3/6 Test #3: rrfs_3denvar_rdasens ............. Passed 495.30 sec
Start 4: hafs_4denvar_glbens
4/6 Test #4: hafs_4denvar_glbens .............. Passed 916.47 sec
Start 5: hafs_3denvar_hybens
5/6 Test #5: hafs_3denvar_hybens .............. Passed 735.96 sec
Start 6: global_enkf
6/6 Test #6: global_enkf ...................... Passed 814.01 sec

100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 6

Total Test time (real) = 4805.09 sec

[RussTreadon-NOAA]

As an additional test, run develop and JingCheng-NOAA:patch-1 gsi.x for for operational 20251023 00Z gdas. The two gsi.x executables generated identical analyses.