Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[DanLarsen34]

So, not sure if this is a question better asked here or in the severe thread, but how many tornadoes from the very long-lived cell we had in Nebraska last night do we think were likely violent?

I have no doubt that we’d have multiple violent ratings like Pilger 2014 if this storm had impacted anything meaningful. This was basically the Greensburg 2007 supercell all over again.

 

[joshoctober16]

So, not sure if this is a question better asked here or in the severe thread, but how many tornadoes from the very long-lived cell we had in Nebraska last night do we think were likely violent?

I have no doubt that we’d have multiple violent ratings like Pilger 2014 if this storm had impacted anything meaningful. This was basically the Greensburg 2007 supercell all over again.

i think the gate to gate wind speed of the daytime wedge was 190 mph from what i herd.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Screw it I'm doing a text version of those maps I used to make of the strongest tornado in each state. As a twist, though, I'm only doing the EF scale era. So....

ALABAMA - EF5: multiple tornadoes, all from 4/27/11. Hackleburg, Cordova, Flat Rock, Tuscaloosa, Rainsville and Ohatchee. Cullman and Bridgeport maybe too but I haven't seen anything that floored me like the others did.
ARKANSAS - EF5: Clinton 2008, Vilonia 2014 and the Tri-State EF4 of 2021 based off contextuals (and yes, I do rate contextuals EF5 even without any impacted structures if they're bad enough). Diaz 2025 was about as close to EF5 as you can get without being EF5, and quite honestly is likely the closest we've come in a while to breaking The Drought(tm).
ARIZONA - EF4: Tuba City 2010, and a case can be made for one of the Bellemont tornadoes as well.
CALIFORNIA - EF4: The Eiler and Carr Fire tornadoes, especially the latter.
COLORADO - EF3: Multiple examples, most notably Windsor 2008
CONNECTICUT - EF1: To name just one, I remember that Windsor Locks one in 2013 that blew the dome off the sports thing and threw it on a semi on the highway. I remember the video from that one, too. "We're gonna light it up, like it's dy-na-mite!"
DELAWARE - EF3: The 2023 tornado. There had never been a bona fide E/F3 candidate in the state until then.
FLORIDA - EF4: DeLand 2007.
GEORGIA - EF5: The one most people point to when saying Georgia EF5 is Ringgold, and honestly I really do agree, but to be fully honest after looking at the photos, Barnesville is a far safer bet and likely the strongest tornado in the state since the Enigma Outbreak.

TBA

 

[OH-IOan]

Screw it I'm doing a text version of those maps I used to make of the strongest tornado in each state. As a twist, though, I'm only doing the EF scale era. So....

ALABAMA - EF5: multiple tornadoes, all from 4/27/11. Hackleburg, Cordova, Flat Rock, Tuscaloosa, Rainsville and Ohatchee. Cullman and Bridgeport maybe too but I haven't seen anything that floored me like the others did.
ARKANSAS - EF5: Clinton 2008, Vilonia 2014 and the Tri-State EF4 of 2021 based off contextuals (and yes, I do rate contextuals EF5 even without any impacted structures if they're bad enough). Diaz 2025 was about as close to EF5 as you can get without being EF5, and quite honestly is likely the closest we've come in a while to breaking The Drought(tm).
ARIZONA - EF4: Tuba City 2010, and a case can be made for one of the Bellemont tornadoes as well.
CALIFORNIA - EF4: The Eiler and Carr Fire tornadoes, especially the latter.
COLORADO - EF3: Multiple examples, most notably Windsor 2008
CONNECTICUT - EF1: To name just one, I remember that Windsor Locks one in 2013 that blew the dome off the sports thing and threw it on a semi on the highway. I remember the video from that one, too. "We're gonna light it up, like it's dy-na-mite!"
DELAWARE - EF3: The 2023 tornado. There had never been a bona fide E/F3 candidate in the state until then.
FLORIDA - EF4: DeLand 2007.
GEORGIA - EF5: The one most people point to when saying Georgia EF5 is Ringgold, and honestly I really do agree, but to be fully honest after looking at the photos, Barnesville is a far safer bet and likely the strongest tornado in the state since the Enigma Outbreak.

TBA

I think the main issue with a hypothetical NWS rating of the Redding tornado (I don't believe they officially rated it) was that it burned everything it touched, meaning that you couldn't conduct a traditional survey. Say a non-anchored row of poorly-built wood (emphasis on the "wood" because things like concrete masonry don't burn) homes burned to the ground and the home's foundation was buried beneath a pile of charred mess, how would you be able to tell what was wind damage and what was wildfire damage? Since fire tornadoes tend to happen within wildfires, you can't conduct a survey immediately after the tornado. Just a thought.

 

[slenker]

I think the main issue with a hypothetical NWS rating of the Redding tornado (I don't believe they officially rated it) was that it burned everything it touched, meaning that you couldn't conduct a traditional survey. Say a non-anchored row of poorly-built wood (emphasis on the "wood" because things like concrete masonry don't burn) homes burned to the ground and the home's foundation was buried beneath a pile of charred mess, how would you be able to tell what was wind damage and what was wildfire damage? Since fire tornadoes tend to happen within wildfires, you can't conduct a survey immediately after the tornado. Just a thought.

Yeah, I wouldn’t doubt that fire whirls could potentially reach violent status in terms of pure windspeed, but a huge issue with them is the fact that it’s burning everything. I would imagine the extreme temperatures and the flames themselves are responsible for >99% of the damage inflicted by them, so it would be impossible to assign a conventional EF rating.

Also, while concrete/masonry/(some)metal doesn’t burn per se, the extreme temperatures within a fire whirl would absolutely be capable of increasing the temperature of the material to a point where the structure becomes far weaker just based on the properties of the material itself. This would easily exacerbate the damage done by winds. I’m not familiar with how concrete does in very high temps though, or what temperature it takes to get to the point where things get structurally compromised. A quick google search says that fire whirls reach up to 2000 F, which is about the same as the temperature of lava fresh out of the ground. I imagine that these materials would literally melt under the insane temperature.

 

[OH-IOan]

Yeah, I wouldn’t doubt that fire whirls could potentially reach violent status in terms of pure windspeed, but a huge issue with them is the fact that it’s burning everything. I would imagine the extreme temperatures and the flames themselves are responsible for >99% of the damage inflicted by them, so it would be impossible to assign a conventional EF rating.

Also, while concrete/masonry/(some)metal doesn’t burn per se, the extreme temperatures within a fire whirl would absolutely be capable of increasing the temperature of the material to a point where the structure becomes far weaker just based on the properties of the material itself. This would easily exacerbate the damage done by winds. I’m not familiar with how concrete does in very high temps though, or what temperature it takes to get to the point where things get structurally compromised. A quick google search says that fire whirls reach up to 2000 F, which is about the same as the temperature of lava fresh out of the ground. I imagine that these materials would literally melt under the insane temperature.

That's true. It's like crashing a car into a brick wall three times over, it'll eventually be less and less functional as you ram into the wall. How the heck would you shelter in a home from a fire whirl (the Carr one was less of a "whirl" and more of a large tornado); wouldn't temperatures, even at basement-level, still be incredibly hot? I mean, imagine the slow-moving Jarrell sitting on top of the Double Creek Estates, but the winds within it were 2,000 degrees hot. Insane to think about.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Yeah, I wouldn’t doubt that fire whirls could potentially reach violent status in terms of pure windspeed, but a huge issue with them is the fact that it’s burning everything. I would imagine the extreme temperatures and the flames themselves are responsible for >99% of the damage inflicted by them, so it would be impossible to assign a conventional EF rating.

Also, while concrete/masonry/(some)metal doesn’t burn per se, the extreme temperatures within a fire whirl would absolutely be capable of increasing the temperature of the material to a point where the structure becomes far weaker just based on the properties of the material itself. This would easily exacerbate the damage done by winds. I’m not familiar with how concrete does in very high temps though, or what temperature it takes to get to the point where things get structurally compromised. A quick google search says that fire whirls reach up to 2000 F, which is about the same as the temperature of lava fresh out of the ground. I imagine that these materials would literally melt under the insane temperature.

This specific tornado lifted a 25 ton bulldozer and dropped it on top of a nearby truck.

"But as they drove north, the tornado descended again, its edges glowing red. It whipped rocks into Cummings’ windshield like bullets, shattering the glass. It was as dark as midnight. Then it picked up the front of his 25-ton bulldozer, pivoting it clockwise and dropping it on the hood of a nearby truck, which was crushed and aflame."

Here's the article about it. it's a really fascinating read. I think it tossed a few cars as well, but it's been a while since I've read about it, so I don't remember all the details.

 

[lake.effect]

Not sure if this has been addressed yet, but in my opinion we should all start this debate with the following question:

What is the purpose of the EF scale?

The obvious answer is to classify the strength of a tornado based on damage, but why is this even useful beyond meteorological record-keeping?

Let's imagine a hypothetical tornado event in which there are two confirmed tornados - an EF5 that only hits one structure, and an EF3 that destroys 500 homes.

This isn't an uncommon outcome. The cumulative damage of lower-end EF scale tornadoes in an outbreak is often higher than the damage caused by higher-end tornadoes in the same outbreak. In the above scenario, the EF scale is useless when it comes to measuring the actual human impact of the tornado, which has real-life consequences for things like disaster relief, resource allocation and human impact.

Let's scale this up even further: The EF scale is useless when it comes to assessing cumulative global (or national) tornado activity, which would be very useful for climate research and weather modeling. If we wanted to measure, for example, the change of total (cumulative) tornado energy and activity over time, we currently have no good way of doing that.

We might have had 50 EF-5 strength tornadoes in the last decade, but none of them hit the right structure at the right time to earn that rating. In the decade before that, we might have 20 EF-5 strength tornadoes (only a few of which earned an EF5 rating), but the official meteorological ratings would suggest that the 2nd decade had a higher level of violent tornado output.

I'm not a pro, but it seems to me that we now have the tools to measure tornado strength and output remotely, without damage surveys. Of course, there would likely still be a margin of error, but it would provide a more consistent baseline for researchers to measure tornado strength and activity. Similar to ACE measurements for hurricanes, but on a local scale.

TLDR - the Fujita methodology made sense for a long time, but no longer makes sense with the technology we have and in many ways is counterproductive.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Not sure if this has been addressed yet, but in my opinion we should all start this debate with the following question:

What is the purpose of the EF scale?

The obvious answer is to classify the strength of a tornado based on damage, but why is this even useful beyond meteorological record-keeping?

Let's imagine a hypothetical tornado event in which there are two confirmed tornados - an EF5 that only hits one structure, and an EF3 that destroys 500 homes.

This isn't an uncommon outcome. The cumulative damage of lower-end EF scale tornadoes in an outbreak is often higher than the damage caused by higher-end tornadoes in the same outbreak. In the above scenario, the EF scale is useless when it comes to measuring the actual human impact of the tornado, which has real-life consequences for things like disaster relief, resource allocation and human impact.

Let's scale this up even further: The EF scale is useless when it comes to assessing cumulative global (or national) tornado activity, which would be very useful for climate research and weather modeling. If we wanted to measure, for example, the change of total (cumulative) tornado energy and activity over time, we currently have no good way of doing that.

We might have had 50 EF-5 strength tornadoes in the last decade, but none of them hit the right structure at the right time to earn that rating. In the decade before that, we might have 20 EF-5 strength tornadoes (only a few of which earned an EF5 rating), but the official meteorological ratings would suggest that the 2nd decade had a higher level of violent tornado output.

I'm not a pro, but it seems to me that we now have the tools to measure tornado strength and output remotely, without damage surveys. Of course, there would likely still be a margin of error, but it would provide a more consistent baseline for researchers to measure tornado strength and activity. Similar to ACE measurements for hurricanes, but on a local scale.

TLDR - the Fujita methodology made sense for a long time, but no longer makes sense with the technology we have and in many ways is counterproductive.

This has been my main argument for a while now. It's neither a damage scale or a wind scale.

It's not a damage scale because maximum damage doesn't receive the maximum rating.

It's not a wind scale because wind measurements aren't considered and there's no established consistency across WFOs. Two houses with the exact same damage were rated 195 MPH in Diaz, and 150 MPH in Lake City.

It's basically an "engineering scrutiny" scale, which doesn't really serve anyone, especially because residential engineering will inevitably get worse if people are lead to believe 200 mph winds haven't existed on earth in 12 years. In reality 5-7% of tornadoes have winds exceeding 200 MPH.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

In regards to Greenfield wind speeds. This image was published on Nasa's website late last year.



Source: Spring 2024 Tornadoes DOW Data

Not sure what caused the DOW team to stretch the 310 mph wind speeds across the whole city, but apparently they're releasing their full report sometime in 2025.

Edit:

Here's another extensive report on the 2024 tornado season published by NASA. Fun read, but the site is clunky as hell for me.

The Hyperactive Spring 2024 Tornado Season

 

[lake.effect]

This has been my main argument for a while now. It's neither a damage scale or a wind scale.

It's not a damage scale because maximum damage doesn't receive the maximum rating.

It's not a wind scale because wind measurements aren't considered and there's no established consistency across WFOs. Two houses with the exact same damage were rated 195 MPH in Diaz, and 150 MPH in Lake City.

It's basically an "engineering scrutiny" scale, which doesn't really serve anyone, especially because residential engineering will inevitably get worse if people are lead to believe 200 mph winds haven't existed on earth in 12 years. In reality 5-7% of tornadoes have winds exceeding 200 MPH.

Exactly. The more I think about it, the more I believe the EF scale is actually worse than useless, it's actually preventing valuable information from becoming available.

OK, not the scale itself. But rather the reliance on the EF scale as the only measurement of tornado intensity, both for a single event and across longer time periods. Your moniker of the EF scale as an "engineering scrutiny" scale is perfect. Besides this, it really doesn't serve a purpose.

So let me offer a solution and give a name: The VES (Velocity-Energy-Signature) Scale. No subjective damage surveys, no under-classifications due to lack of damage indicators. Just 3 objective, easily measured and unbiased variables:

• Velocity (from radar wind fields)
• Energy (kinetic output, debris lofting)
• Signature (a combination of velocity data, the diameter of the rotation, and the vertical depth (thickness) of the debris column to estimate total kinetic energy output).

This gives researchers a new framework to measure a single tornado's intensity regardless of damage. But more importantly, creates a way to measure the total tornado activity over periods of time, which creates a much clearer picture of tornado activity and total energy output.

I'm sorry Ted. You were a pioneer and a legend. But we gotta move on.

 

[Aaron Rider]

Screw it I'm doing a text version of those maps I used to make of the strongest tornado in each state. As a twist, though, I'm only doing the EF scale era. So....

ALABAMA - EF5: multiple tornadoes, all from 4/27/11. Hackleburg, Cordova, Flat Rock, Tuscaloosa, Rainsville and Ohatchee. Cullman and Bridgeport maybe too but I haven't seen anything that floored me like the others did.
ARKANSAS - EF5: Clinton 2008, Vilonia 2014 and the Tri-State EF4 of 2021 based off contextuals (and yes, I do rate contextuals EF5 even without any impacted structures if they're bad enough). Diaz 2025 was about as close to EF5 as you can get without being EF5, and quite honestly is likely the closest we've come in a while to breaking The Drought(tm).
ARIZONA - EF4: Tuba City 2010, and a case can be made for one of the Bellemont tornadoes as well.
CALIFORNIA - EF4: The Eiler and Carr Fire tornadoes, especially the latter.
COLORADO - EF3: Multiple examples, most notably Windsor 2008
CONNECTICUT - EF1: To name just one, I remember that Windsor Locks one in 2013 that blew the dome off the sports thing and threw it on a semi on the highway. I remember the video from that one, too. "We're gonna light it up, like it's dy-na-mite!"
DELAWARE - EF3: The 2023 tornado. There had never been a bona fide E/F3 candidate in the state until then.
FLORIDA - EF4: DeLand 2007.
GEORGIA - EF5: The one most people point to when saying Georgia EF5 is Ringgold, and honestly I really do agree, but to be fully honest after looking at the photos, Barnesville is a far safer bet and likely the strongest tornado in the state since the Enigma Outbreak.

TBA

Could you refer me to pictures from the Barnesville, GA tornadoes as well as the Delaware one you mentioned?

P.S. for my native state, you really only have one option, the Bensalem TWP (near Philly) EF3 back in July, 2021.

 

[Aaron Rider]

New June First video about Greenfield

 

[NorthGaWeather]

GEORGIA - EF5: The one most people point to when saying Georgia EF5 is Ringgold, and honestly I really do agree, but to be fully honest after looking at the photos, Barnesville is a far safer bet and likely the strongest tornado in the state since the Enigma Outbreak.

I don’t usually jump into the hypotheticals on this thread as people get emotionally attached to their favorite tornadoes, but what the heck. I mean no disrespect, but I disagree. And I probably won’t see your reply for a while, so I’m not being rude. Barnesville wasn’t even the strongest EF-3 in Georgia during that outbreak. Dade/Walker (continuation of Flat Rock) and Bartow/Cherokee/Pickens, which I surveyed, objectively caused higher EF scale damage, and were frankly more impressive, IMO. Barnesville was thoroughly examined. It wasn’t even close to being the strongest in Georgia since the Enigma Outbreak.

Ringgold was a curious case, but after an engineering consultation it was given its 175 rating. Although, we all agree it was likely capable of EF-5 damage, and probably achieved it in Apison, TN. The lead on that survey team has recently retired, but he gave a great presentation on it that’s still floating around.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Exactly. The more I think about it, the more I believe the EF scale is actually worse than useless, it's actually preventing valuable information from becoming available.

OK, not the scale itself. But rather the reliance on the EF scale as the only measurement of tornado intensity, both for a single event and across longer time periods. Your moniker of the EF scale as an "engineering scrutiny" scale is perfect. Besides this, it really doesn't serve a purpose.

So let me offer a solution and give a name: The VES (Velocity-Energy-Signature) Scale. No subjective damage surveys, no under-classifications due to lack of damage indicators. Just 3 objective, easily measured and unbiased variables:

• Velocity (from radar wind fields)
• Energy (kinetic output, debris lofting)
• Signature (a combination of velocity data, the diameter of the rotation, and the vertical depth (thickness) of the debris column to estimate total kinetic energy output).

This gives researchers a new framework to measure a single tornado's intensity regardless of damage. But more importantly, creates a way to measure the total tornado activity over periods of time, which creates a much clearer picture of tornado activity and total energy output.

I'm sorry Ted. You were a pioneer and a legend. But we gotta move on.

I 100% agree with most of your sentiments, and really like your kinetic energy approach. I still think damage has to be taken into consideration. It's the only way we can actually confirm a tornado touched the ground and its strength. There's ample evidence tornado vortexes are strongest at their base, but if that base isn't actually planted firmly on the ground it changes the picture completely. Tornado classification by kinetic energy would be extremely useful for climatology... but I think that could be calculated after the fact using tornadoes' strength rating and the DAT as additional data points. There have been two studies conducted in this manner and I posted about them here. Pretty mind boggling stuff.

A strength rating calculated from an algorithm that weighs radar velocities, correlation coefficient, and damage would be neat. Kind of like how we calculate the Significant Tornado Parameter using CAPE, SRH, and sheer.

Radar Velocity could be weighed higher based on how close the scans were to the ground, and the resolution of the scans.

Correlation coefficient might have zero weight until it gets below any value that could be explained as a hail core, then its weight could increase in an exponential way.

Damage HAS to be be measured with a system that is clear, consistent, and leaves the least possible room for subjectivity and bias. Like 90% of the EF scale's current problems are due to the fact almost no surveyors are using it as it is written. Surveyors straight up change damage indicators to fit their opinions on construction quality, or they downgrade the degree of damage to get lower wind speeds. Lake city had a well-built, clean slab, but the lower bound on that DOD is 165, so the surveyors just knocked the DOD down to an "all walls collapsed' and used those wind speeds (150 MPH) instead. Which, from a scientific perspective, is pretty cringe.

If I understand it correctly, I think the IF scale uses a system pretty similar to this, but it has 9 steps instead of 3? @joshoctober16 could probably explain it better than me. He also invented a method of using satellite imagery to outline sub vortices based on areas with sharp increases in the degree of damage that I think would be really useful in practice.

 

[cat_5_meow]

Hi, this is my first post but I've been lurking here since around the Rolling Fork '23 tornado.

I've been wondering about Fujita's estimation of the Goessel winds using helicoidal tracks on the ground. Has anyone here read the paper in detail to figure out the calculation?

If you simplify a lot of factors, a back-of-the-envelope calculation can give you the rotational speed of a tornado if an object (satellite tornado, subvortex, something scraping the ground...) is spinning around its centre and leaving a mark on the ground, provided you have:
- the forward speed of the tornado,
- the distance between your object and the centre of the tornado,
- a measurement of the (smallest) distance between two periods of the mark on the ground (which is called a trochoid curve!)

As one can picture by imagining an object rotating around a slowly moving point, if the object is spinning very fast then you'll obtain almost full circles close to each other. If the track looks like this, and the circles have a large radius while the tornado moves forward quickly, this suggests a violent tornado. See the image with some curves plotted depending on the rotational speed.

The Goessel image attached is indeed very impressive in that regard, if the tornado was moving forward at a decent speed at the time the image was taken. This also doesn't even take into account the rotational speed of the subvortex itself!

Of course the general picture is more complicated as tornadoes don't have a homogeneous forward speed (or even a completely linear track), and subvortices themselves have very chaotic movement rather than a path following the "ideal" curve, see attached image again.

I know that many tornadoes over the years, even EF1's, have had marks like this. It's not surprising since you really need all three parameters (forward speed, 1/(distance between periods), radius) to be high, for example a satellite rotating around a 10mph tornado will leave a completely circular scar if the tornado itself is not moving. Are there examples where this rough calculation could be done?

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Hi, this is my first post but I've been lurking here since around the Rolling Fork '23 tornado.

I've been wondering about Fujita's estimation of the Goessel winds using helicoidal tracks on the ground. Has anyone here read the paper in detail to figure out the calculation?

If you simplify a lot of factors, a back-of-the-envelope calculation can give you the rotational speed of a tornado if an object (satellite tornado, subvortex, something scraping the ground...) is spinning around its centre and leaving a mark on the ground, provided you have:
- the forward speed of the tornado,
- the distance between your object and the centre of the tornado,
- a measurement of the (smallest) distance between two periods of the mark on the ground (which is called a trochoid curve!)

As one can picture by imagining an object rotating around a slowly moving point, if the object is spinning very fast then you'll obtain almost full circles close to each other. If the track looks like this, and the circles have a large radius while the tornado moves forward quickly, this suggests a violent tornado. The Goessel image attached is indeed very impressive in that regard, if the tornado was moving forward at a decent speed at the time the image was taken. This also doesn't even take into account the rotational speed of the subvortex itself!

Of course the general picture is more complicated as tornadoes don't have a homogeneous forward speed (or even a completely linear track), and subvortices themselves have very chaotic movement rather than a path following the "ideal" curve, see attached image again.

I know that many tornadoes over the years, even EF1's, have had marks like this. It's not surprising since you really need all three parameters (forward speed, 1/(distance between periods), radius) to be high, for example a satellite rotating around a 10mph tornado will leave a completely circular scar if the tornado itself is not moving. Are there examples where this rough calculation could be done?

There was a really good couple of posts about this exact topic in the Significant Tornado thread very recently, but I can't remember who it was. Maybe try searching there?

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Could you refer me to pictures from the Barnesville, GA tornadoes as well as the Delaware one you mentioned?

P.S. for my native state, you really only have one option, the Bensalem TWP (near Philly) EF3 back in July, 2021.

Sure thing!

Barnesville

Delaware I'm somewhat drawing a blank for but it was an official rating if that helps

I don’t usually jump into the hypotheticals on this thread as people get emotionally attached to their favorite tornadoes, but what the heck. I mean no disrespect, but I disagree. And I probably won’t see your reply for a while, so I’m not being rude. Barnesville wasn’t even the strongest EF-3 in Georgia during that outbreak. Dade/Walker (continuation of Flat Rock) and Bartow/Cherokee/Pickens, which I surveyed, objectively caused higher EF scale damage, and were frankly more impressive, IMO. Barnesville was thoroughly examined. It wasn’t even close to being the strongest in Georgia since the Enigma Outbreak.

Ringgold was a curious case, but after an engineering consultation it was given its 175 rating. Although, we all agree it was likely capable of EF-5 damage, and probably achieved it in Apison, TN. The lead on that survey team has recently retired, but he gave a great presentation on it that’s still floating around.

Hmmmm..... I have Flat Rock as EF5 for damage in AL and the second one (Pine Log) as an EF4. Can you post damage from both of those? I still think Barnesville was HE EF4 at least, but now I'm quite curious...

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

We might have had 50 EF-5 strength tornadoes in the last decade, but none of them hit the right structure at the right time to earn that rating. In the decade before that, we might have 20 EF-5 strength tornadoes (only a few of which earned an EF5 rating), but the official meteorological ratings would suggest that the 2nd decade had a higher level of violent tornado output.

Hmmm...

E/F5 TORNADOES 2005-2025 (my analysis!)

First, 2005-2015

2005
That one tornado in China

2006
Westminster

2007
Greensburg
Trousdale
Hopewell

2008
Clinton
Picher
Parkersburg

2009
San Pedro (I agree with @Marshall79344 that this thing was of extreme intensity)

2010
Parker's Prairie (maybe)
Wadena (maybe)
Tyler/Doran

2011 (whew boy)
Philadelphia
New Wren
Hackleburg
Cordova
Smithville
Flat Rock
Tuscaloosa
Rainsville
Ohatchee
Ringgold
Barnesville
Joplin
Canton Lake
Piedmont
Chickasha
Goldsby
Berlin
Tipton

2012
Henryville (maybe)

2013
Moore
El Reno (solely because of the windspeed)
Washington

2014
Vilonia
Louisville
Stanton
Pilger
Pilger East
Wakefield (maybe, I've heard it caused some seriously intense tree damage)
Coleridge
Alpena

2015
Rochelle
Cisco
Holly Springs

2005-2015 = 40 for sure E/F5s by my estimate, 44 if adding the uncertain ones

Now for the 2015-2025 period

2015
Rochelle
Cisco
Holly Springs

2016
Chapman

2017
Perryville (maybe)
Canton (maybe)

2018
Camp Crook

2020
Bassfield

2021
Tri-State (Monette)
Mayfield (mainly based off contextual evidence in and around Bremen)

2023
Rolling Fork (based off the Dollar General, which Nick Kras stated would be EF5 damage on the new EF scale)
Matador (@buckeye05 posted evidence for EF5 structural damage, and I also had given it an EF5 for the contextual evidence. In particular, the disappearance of entire mesquite trees, which I don't think any tornado has done before, makes it the most powerful in Texas state history (yes, over Bakersfield Valley and Jarrell!) and one of the Top 5 strongest tornadoes of all time in my eyes)

2024
Sterling City (Needless to say, when the area after a tornado is compared to the aftermath of a galactic space laser and a MOAB, you've got an extremely powerful tornado)
Greenfield (again, for the wind estimate)

2015-2025 = 12 for sure E/F5s by my estimate, 14 adding the uncertain ones

 

[AJS]

Hmmm...

E/F5 TORNADOES 2005-2025 (my analysis!)

First, 2005-2015

2005
That one tornado in China

2006
Westminster

2007
Greensburg
Trousdale
Hopewell

2008
Clinton
Picher
Parkersburg

2010
Tornadoes from 6/17/10 including Parker's Prairie and Albert Lea (maybe) (note to @TH2002 - what 6/17/10 tornadoes would you consider potential EF5 candidates?)
Tyler/Doran

2011 (whew boy)
Philadelphia
New Wren
Hackleburg
Cordova
Smithville
Flat Rock
Tuscaloosa
Rainsville
Ohatchee
Ringgold
Barnesville
Joplin
Canton Lake
Piedmont
Chickasha
Goldsby
Berlin
Tipton

2012
Henryville (maybe)

2013
Moore
El Reno (solely because of the windspeed)
Washington

2014
Vilonia
Louisville
Stanton
Pilger
Pilger East
Wakefield (maybe, I've heard it caused some seriously intense tree damage)
Coleridge
Alpena

2015
Rochelle
Cisco
Holly Springs

2005-2015 = 41 for sure E/F5s by my estimate, 45 if adding the uncertain ones

Now for the 2015-2025 period

2015
Rochelle
Cisco
Holly Springs

2016
Chapman

2017
Canton (maybe)

2018
Camp Crook

2020
Bassfield

2021
Tri-State (Monette)
Mayfield (mainly based off contextual evidence in and around Bremen)

2023
Rolling Fork (based off the Dollar General, which Nick Kras stated would be EF5 damage on the new EF scale)
Matador (@buckeye05 posted evidence for EF5 structural damage, and I also had given it an EF5 for the contextual evidence. In particular, the disappearance of entire mesquite trees, which I don't think any tornado has done before, makes it the most powerful in Texas state history (yes, over Bakersfield Valley and Jarrell!) and one of the Top 5 strongest tornadoes of all time in my eyes)

2024
Sterling City (Needless to say, when the area after a tornado is compared to the aftermath of a galactic space laser and a MOAB, you've got an extremely powerful tornado)
Greenfield (again, for the wind estimate)

2015-2025 = 12 for sure E/F5s by my estimate, 13 adding the uncertain one

I agree that Matador was an exceptionally violent tornado and honestly produced some of the most extreme contextual damage you’ll probably ever see, but I don’t believe it was as violent as Jarrell. The destruction at Jarrell was a lot more complete and the aftermath legitimately resembled a landscape with nothing left. It took the definition of destroying everything in its path to a whole new level.