Update WW3 with 20240116 commit

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

Commit Queue Requirements:

• Fill out all sections of this template.
• All sub component pull requests have been reviewed by their code managers.
• Run the full Intel+GNU RT suite (compared to current baselines) on either Hera/Derecho/Hercules
• Commit 'test_changes.list' from previous step

---

Description:

This PR updates WW3 (after PR #2549) and isolates the commit that changes answers. This WW3 commit can be seen here: NOAA-EMC/WW3@3952826
Many efforts were made to understand why this PR is changing answers. Different parts of the PR changes were isolated, print statements, etc, were made however so far we have not been able to identify why/what changed. The resulting changes are small. This chnages answers to anything using WW3.

Commit Message:

Update WW3 with 2024-1-16 commit

* UFSWM - 
  * WW3 - Update one commit hash

Priority:

• Normal: Part of a series of PR that has updates needed for GFSv17.

Git Tracking

UFSWM:

• None

Sub component Pull Requests:

• WW3: Update dev/ufs-weather-model with develop 2024-01-16 NOAA-EMC/WW3#1343

UFSWM Blocking Dependencies:

• Blocked by # Merge develop of WW3 up to 2024-01-11 to dev/ufs-weather-model #1342 #2549

---

Changes

Regression Test Changes (Please commit test_changes.list):

• PR Updates/Changes Baselines.

Input data Changes:

• None.

Library Changes/Upgrades:

• No Updates

---

Testing Log:

• RDHPCS
  • Hera
  • Orion
  • Hercules
  • Jet
  • GaeaC5
  • GaeaC6
  • Derecho
• WCOSS2
  • Dogwood/Cactus
  • Acorn
• CI
• opnReqTest (complete task if unnecessary)

[JessicaMeixner-NOAA]

I know that this unexpectedly changes baselines. If there are any additional tests anyone wants to see, please let me know so I can get those started.

[DeniseWorthen]

I looked at this commit (for my own curiosity) over the past year. Using mediator history files I found that the first difference arises w/ very very small b4b differences (~10-30) at a single point location for the exported stokes drift components. I think we need to just accept it and move on.

[jkbk2004]

@JessicaMeixner-NOAA we consider to combine this pr to #2387.

[DeniseWorthen]

@jkbk2004 I would like to understand why, if you're looking to combine PRs, the PR for the CoastalApp (#2396) which has no baseline change and which has been waiting since August is not considered higher priority than this one?