I think there might be a problem when you assume a 100 year return is
actually a 1 00 year return


I think 'prove' is a tad strong, Phred, but assuming Gordon's
observation is correct, it would seem to indicate some climate
change. A back of the envelope calculation gives me that the
probability of four or more 100 year events within 60 years is only
about 1 %. However, before jumping to conclusion we'd better ask:
what is Gordon's event-type and can he show us the data?