Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply, United Nations Warns

Land and water resources around the globe are being exploited at “unprecedented rates,” a new United Nations report warns, threatening the ability of humanity to feed itself.

The report warns that climate change will exacerbate the dangers, as extreme weather threatens to disrupt and shrink the global food supply.

Food shortages could also increase a flow of immigration that is already redefining politics in North America, Europe and other regions. From 2010 to 2015, the number of migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras who traveled to the U.S. increased fivefold, coinciding with an unusually dry period that left many without enough food.

The world’s land and water resources are being exploited at “unprecedented rates,” a new United Nations report warns, which combined with climate change is putting dire pressure on the ability of humanity to feed itself.

The report, prepared by more than 100 experts from 52 countries and released in summary form in Geneva on Thursday, found that the window to address the threat is closing rapidly. A half-billion people already live in places turning into desert, and soil is being lost between 10 and 100 times faster than it is forming, according to the report.

Advertisements

Wisdom

Wisdom

When I have ceased to break my wings 
Against the faultiness of things, 
And learned that compromises wait 
Behind each hardly opened gate, 
When I can look Life in the eyes, 
Grown calm and very coldly wise, 
Life will have given me the Truth, 
And taken in exchange — my youth.

 Sara Teasdale, Love Songs)

Changes.

At the end of the 1960s, and the mystical hippie dawning of the Aquarius age, we were all Still searching for meaning.

The big four philosophers when I was 18 were Hesse, Vonnegut, Brautigan and Tolkien.

Of course I read other influential writers, but at the time I really believed everything I needed to know about being a decent human being was in the works of those four, though it took me another 50 years to really begin to understand why.

There was another influential book I encountered.

In the course of exploring the world I came upon the I Ching. inevitably. It had a great deal of credibility amongst the hippies of my generation. Of course I looked into it. I still have, in my lock-up in New Zealand, a beautiful translation from Chinese through German to English, of the I Ching by Richard Wilhelm.

Yarrow sticks were hard to come by where I grew up, but I was a numismatist, and had in my collection several of those fascinating old Chinese coins with square holes. It seemed appropriate to use them. Having designated which side was heads and which was tails, I had a culturally acceptable method of obtaining a randomly generated hexagram, in accordance with the instructions accompanying the book.

My youthful, hopeful self was quite surprised to find how seemingly accurate and appropriate was the advice I gleaned from the wise words of the Tao. The last remnants of my Roman Catholic superstition we’re slowly fading at the time (now only the guilt remains) and I could possibly have easily fallen into the woo mentally of believing some spiritual power, something beyond myself, was guiding me, through the words of the book.

But I read something – I don’t recall exactly where – some scientific article, perhaps, that said our brains were hard-wired to look for patterns. We look for visual patterns, such as potentially threatening animal or human shapes hiding in the trees, and we look for patterns of events and try to make some sense, often wrong, of the coincidences and causality.

The evolutionary advantage of this pattern recognition behaviour is in the significance of the value of the false positive over the false negative.

If I see what looks like a lion lurking in the bushes, and run, the likelihood of staying alive is increased, whether it is a real or imagined lion. If I decide it’s a trick of the light, and ignore it, my chances of survival are decreased if I am wrong.

The same principle applies if we recognise a pattern of events that seem to coincide. Should it rain enough times after we ask nature politely for a shower to water the crop, we may come to believe that asking causes rain.

The downside of this, is that as there is, or was, an evolutionary advantage to being superstitious. We suffered from pareidolia. It became an affliction. We came to see those shapes and faces in the bark of trees, as beings, and ascribed to them powers and motives. We recognised patterns of events, some like the celestial movements, or the seasons, quite real. Then some smart arse recognised the patterns of our own behaviour, saw an opportunity for power and put himself forward as an intermediary between the common people and the spiritual world. And we got religion.

But I digress. I was speaking of the I Ching. I recognised that my brain was looking for patterns in the events of my own life. I was taking the words from an ancient book written in Chinese, translate first to German then to English, and gleaning valuable meaning from them. But this was not superstition. The advice the book was giving me was good. Why? Because it was written in such a way that it was inevitable that the reader would apply the general advice in such a way that it would most benefit him. Because the Tau was the way of the upright, it had to be good advice. For a few formative years the I Ching helped me make decisions that brought me to where I am now. I have few regrets.

These musings were inspired by coming upon this following little piece in one of the philosophical emails that turn up in my in-box from time to time.

After a few more hours swimming up and down the Bribie Island pool, I may have more to write on the subject.

The following is borrowed from Psychology Today.

Impact of the I Ching on Carl G. Jung & its implications

Jung, Taoist psychology, and cross-cultural communications

Posted Mar 01, 2017 

Although research has examined how world cultures (e.g., independent vs. interdependent ones) each uniquely shaped psychological experiences, few investigations focus on how cultures influence one another in the psychological domains. This issue is important, because cross-cultural information and knowledge exchange, contacts, and influences, though moderate in the past, have transformed all cultures, including the field of psychology. For example, Taoist psychology is one of the main cultural inspirations for Jungian psychology.

In May 1930, Jung gave the Eulogy at a memorial service in Munich for Richard Wilhelm. Jung integrated the Eastern philosophy into his principles of psychotherapy and human psyche through his study of Richard Wilhelm’s translations of I Ching (The Book of Changes), The Secret of the Golden Flower, and their frequent interactions that lasted from the early 1920’s until Wilhelm’s death in 1930 (Goulding, 2015; Karcher, 1999; Stein, 2005).

Jung said that Wilhelm “inoculated us with the living germ of the Chinese spirit and we found ourselves partaking of the spirit of the East as we experience the living power of the I Ching. It is capable of working a profound transformation of our thought.” Jung said that Wilhelm’s work was of such immense importance to him because it confirmed what he had been seeking in his efforts to alleviate the psychic suffering of Europeans. The book was both a carrier of human experience and a door to the energy of the archetypes. “I heard from him in clear language the things I had dimly divined in the confusion of the European subconscious. I received more from him than from any other man” (cited in Karcher, 1999; also see Goulding, 2015; Stein, 2005).

Jung expressed his deep gratitude for what he received from Wilhelm, because through his translations and teaching, Taoist psychology influenced Jung’s theoretical frameworks by facilitating the formation of his chief conceptions: synchronicity and individuation, in addition to confirming his views about the unconscious and nonlinear or circular psychological development for adult (Goulding, 2015; Karcher, 1999; Stein, 2005).

Jung’s comprehension of Tao is much deeper than the conventional translation “the way.” As he commented, Tao is the interaction between the mind and reality. The essential Taoist idea in I Ching suggests that all of the ingredients make up the observed moment. Understanding human experiences involves recognizing a special interdependence of objective events among themselves, as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers (Jung, 1967). In other words, according to I Ching, psychological experiences are determined by the interaction of the mind, time, space, situations, and action or non-action. The mind and reality interaction, rather than being an isolated or independent event, symbolically represents the person’s dialogue with a broad reality transcending a specific moment and space. It is the interactions that serve as the parameter for deciphering psychological experiences.

In short, Jung’s achievements in integrating the East and West demonstrate that psychological phenomena and principles are both cultural and universal.

References:

Goulding, J. (2015). The forgotten Frankfurt school: Richard Wilhelm’s China Institute. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 41:1-2 (March–June 2014) 170–186

Jung, C. G. (1967). Foreword. In The I Ching or Book of changes (C. F. Baynes, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Karcher, S. (1999). Jung, the Tao and the Classic of Change. Journal of Religion and Health, 38, 287-304.

Stein, M. (2005). Some reflections on the influence of Chinese thought on Jung and his  psychological theory. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 50(2), 209-222. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8774.2005.00524

It Doesn’t Really Matter Any More

I’m resigned to a lot of things, many of which I could never come to terms with before.

It has been hard letting things go. Letting people go.

But when the world as I know it is coming to an end,

and those who can do something about it won’t;

Nothing really matters.

The Power of Words.

I well understand the power of words. I understand their power to hurt and to soothe.

I know the not-so-subtle difference In meaning and context, for example between Women Being Raped, and Men Raping Women.

Ive been trained in forensic interview techniques. I’ve been lied to, insulted and cursed by the best, in several languages. When this happens, I do almost the same thing I do if I have somehow got myself into a life-threatening or dangerous situation. (I do that now and then. It is part of my nature to see how far I can go).

When I’m insulted, I become calm and analytical. I try to figure out if I am in the wrong, if I deserve the criticism, or whether it is a defence/offence mechanism.

So I was taken aback recently when, after posting an old photo of myself on my bike at Katanning airfield, one of my friends made the comment “Yobbo”.

It seems reasonable enough, one would think. I could be mistaken for a yob.

The comment was surely intended in the humorous vein of friendly joshing we all indulge in. I am sure of it.

So.

I don’t know why I’m so insulted by that comment. Maybe the word is psychologically loaded in my subconscious. Call me a larrikin or a yahoo and I’d probably smile and agree. But yobbo hits a raw nerve somehow. Is there something in my youth or childhood to explain this feeling?

I can’t recall. I have thought about it for a day and still my first instinct is to say “go fuck yourself” or delete the comment. Why? I’m 67 years old, I’ve been successful in at least some of my fields of endeavour, I’ve worked in 7 countries, speak three languages, can say basic phrases or at least “thank you”, “may I have”, and “where is … ?” in another 10. I understand the power of words. Where does this one gain its power over my subconscious?

This is most interesting. It’s like listening to a song that makes you cry, even though it is not the sort you might think would do that. There’s a trigger I don’t recall. Fascinating.

So be aware. “Yobbo”, for some reason I cannot explain is a grave insult to me. As bad as, or even worse than, “climate change denier” , “antivaxxer”, or “creationist”.

Yes. There are songs that make me cry.

Climate Science.

Reprinted from here.

So that Dad can read it.

Have you got climate zombies? We debunk the myths that refuse to die

ABC Science

By environment reporter Nick Kilvert

Climate denial has been funded by industry and lobby groups.

Have you got climate zombies?

They might pop up in your social media feed, or manifest in comments under climate change news online. They might even appear at your Christmas lunch. And they’re rife in some media outlets — they often come out after dark. Or they might be your Dad. Or your friend Glenn.

They’re the cases against climate science that were buried years ago, yet somehow, refuse to die.

“It’s the Milankovitch cycles”, “CO2 is good for plants anyway”, “What have the scientists ever done for us?”

You might have even been infected yourself. It’s no surprise really, a multi-billion dollar campaign funded by the likes of Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, Koch-affiliated foundations, and parts of the fossil fuel industry has been animating these damned corpses since the ’80s.

So consider this your own handy guide for killing the undead. Or at least a shield for deflecting their relentless pursuit of brains.

Good luck out there.

CO2 doesn’t cause warming?

We may as well start at the top, with this wretched creature — the CO2-doesn’t-cause-warming zombie.

Father of climate science, my Foote!

Science Friction: Who was the incredible Eunice Foote and why did she disappear from history?

Your defence? Yes. Yes it does.

The first scientist to show the link between CO2 and warming was Eunice Foote — an American scientist, inventor and women’s rights activist.

Her research — Affecting the Heat of the Sun’s Rays — published in 1856, is now credited with first identifying the greenhouse effect.

She identified the warming capacity of CO2, as well as “common air” and “damp air”.

But her contribution to science was largely written out of the history books after Irish physicist and atmospheric scientist John Tyndall made a similar finding in 1859.

He found that water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone were very efficient in the trapping of atmospheric heat.

Then in 1896, another man with facial hair and a science degree called Svante Arrhenius showed just how much warming we could expect from burning fossil fuels.

But CO2 was below 300 parts per million at the time, and his findings were more of a scientific interest than cause for concern.

Now, more than 100 years later, there’s been plenty of research into CO2, but as far as its effect on atmospheric warming goes not much has changed, according to Mark Howden, director of the Climate Change Institute and a vice chair of the IPCC.

John Tyndall got most of the credit, but Eunice Foote figured out CO2 caused warming in 1856. (On the Shoulders of Giants: Roger Kammerer)

“Anyone who says that this doesn’t happen has to catch up with 150 years worth of science,” Professor Howden said.

“The argument that small concentrations don’t matter is an absolutely ridiculous one.

“You wouldn’t propose that anyone take half a teaspoon of potassium cyanide — it’s a small concentration in your body but we know it’s fatal.”

“[And] the scale of the increase [of CO2] is huge. In my lifetime it’s gone up 100 parts per million.”

And while we’re on the topic, volcanoes — sometimes blamed for releasing more CO2 than humans — release only about 1 per cent of the CO2 that we do.

It’s Milankovitch cycles

(GIF: Orbital precession)

As a general rule, if it’s something taught in elementary earth sciences, scientists have well and truly thought of it, studied it and discounted it.

While throwing around the term Milankovitch cycles may sound good at parties, it’s a pretty simple and flawed explanation for the climate change we’re experiencing right now.

Since the 1920s, thanks to Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch, we’ve known that cyclical variations in Earth’s orbit and tilts and wobbles of our axis influence climate and drive ice ages and interglacial periods.

The problem is, these cycles wax and wane over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and don’t correlate with today’s rapid temperature increase.

Right now, Earth’s tilt is in the decreasing phase, which means the northern hemisphere, where the majority of our landmass is located, is slightly less tilted towards the Sun.

So, if Milankovitch cycles were the dominant driver or “forcing” on our planet, we’d be in a cooler phase where temperatures should be slightly down on average.

There’s been a 5? 10? 20? year pause in warming

Farewell Andrew Bolt

This little doozy has gone a bit quiet in the past few years, though it ate quite a few brains in the early 2000s and again in 2012/13.

Thanks in part to a savage El Nino, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year globally — at the time, the hottest on modern record at 0.62 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

But warming isn’t linear, it goes up and down a bit, and so inevitably the following years were a bit cooler.

The myth of the pause or warming hiatus started here.

If you take 1998 as year one, and then look forward to 2002, it appears that warming has stopped or is trending slightly downwards.

If you ignore the black trend line, it looks like there was a ‘warming pause’ in the early 2000s. (Supplied: NASA)

But climate is measured at a minimum of 30-year periods, according to Will Steffen and Annika Dean of the Australian National University and the Climate Council.

As time went on, 2005 was hotter than 1998, 2010 hotter than 2005, and 2014, 15, 16, 17 and 18, hotter than all of them.

1998 now clings on to 10th place in the global temperature books, with the hottest nine all since 2005.

But that pesky trendline was right all along. (Supplied: NASA)

Unless it’s a seriously anomalous year, 2019 looks almost certain to knock 1998 out of the top 10.

“The climate has warmed very strongly over the past 30 years,” Professor Steffen and Dr Dean said.

“These short fluctuations do not show the long-term trend in climate.”

It’s a natural cycle, man

Carbon dioxide levels for as far back as our ice cores can show have never been as high as they are today. (Supplied: NASA)

Earth’s climate is constantly changing.

Typically that’s due to things like Milankovitch cycles, variations in solar activity, as well as changes in greenhouse gas quantities in the atmosphere, and it mostly happens on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

The slow nature of these cycles mean plant communities are able to migrate north and south, and animals — humans recently included — can go with them.

But there have also been some really fast warming events.

The biggest one we know of was the end-Permian extinction, also known as the “Great Dying”, about 252 million years ago.

It’s called the Great Dying because about 90 per cent of species died.

Researchers believe it was caused by CO2 from massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia, wildfires, plus high emissions of methane.

The CO2 emissions that kickstarted the end happened over a period of between 2,100 and 18,800 years.

The average temperature on Earth ramped up by up to 10C.

We’re hoping that’s a much more radical change than we’re going to face — the IPCC’s worst-case scenario is 4.8C by the end of the century.

But at least in part, the ferocity of the end-Permian extinction was likely due to the rate Earth warmed at.

Then, like now, species didn’t have a chance to adapt to rapid changes in climate.

Unlike the end-Permian, volcanic activity on Earth right now is pretty low by geological standards, yet CO2 is rising faster and higher than it has been for as far back as our ice cores can show — about 800,000 years.

And we know that’s because we’re burning fossil fuels, according to Professor Howden.

“[CO2] concentrations were 280ppm in the pre-industrial era, and they’re now at 415ppm,” he said.

It’s definitely due to humans because the isotopic signature of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has changed and it reflects the fact that additional carbon dioxide is being added from fossil fuels.”

“[Carbon dioxide from] fossil fuels has a different isotopic signature from carbon dioxide from say, decomposing trees or grass.”

Plants grow better with more CO2 anyway

GIF: Plants need more than just CO2 to grow

Setting aside the fact that the biggest limitation to tree growth isn’t CO2, but humans cutting them down, on face value there is some truth to this argument.

Carbon dioxide makes plant food. And like people, when plants eat more food they get bigger.

But also like humans, plants don’t need just one type of food, they need variety in order to get their fill of nutrients.

For plants that’s things like phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulfur.

In Australia, and other continents like South America, phosphorus is the big limiting factor.

David Ellsworth, an environmental scientist from Western Sydney University, exposed areas of mature eucalypt forest to high levels of CO2 for three years.

While there was more photosynthesis in the leaves, the trees didn’t grow any more than the control groups that were exposed to ambient air, he told the ABC earlier this year.

“Growth is limited by nutrients in the soil,” Professor Ellsworth said.

“What we’ve found is that low phosphorus levels really prevent the kind of growth that predictions would tell you to expect.”

But trees that were given extra phosphorus and no extra CO2 increased their growth rate by about 35 per cent.

Increased CO2 will only make a difference to tree growth if we distribute fertiliser with it.

It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period

This one goes hand-in-hand with the natural-cycles argument and is one of the more logically challenged zombies.

Warming unprecedented in 2000 years

Research shows Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period weren’t globally coherent periods of warming or cold.

Palaeoclimate data [mostly proxy data from coral and tree records] shows warmer than average conditions, mostly in Europe and North America for at least some parts of AD 800-1200 — known as the Medieval Warm Period.

But analysis of the data published this week in the journal Nature shows two things.

Firstly, that Earth wasn’t uniformly warmed during that period. Peak warm periods occurred at different times in Europe than in North America.

According to the researchers, framing these localised temperature peaks as representing globally warmer conditions is misleading.

“The a-priori belief about a given palaeoclimate time series should be that it represents local information,” they write.

Second, the research confirms that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period weren’t as warm as today.

Instead, the researchers reiterated that the hottest period between AD 1 and AD 2000 was in the tail end of the 20th century, and that unlike between AD 800-1200, that warming has been uniform across 98 per cent of the globe at the same time.

This also indicates that current CO2 climate forcing is stronger than the forcing between AD 800-1200.

But the world’s been colder before when CO2 levels were higher

See above.

CO2 isn’t the only driver of climate.

CO2 has been at higher levels than today, when temperatures were much cooler.

That’s when things like low solar activity or Milankovitch cycles were the dominant climate forcings, or factors.

There are a multitude of things that can affect the climate, and CO2 is just one of them.

When all things are equal, and you take one factor and ramp it up or down, it’s going to make a change.

We can observe this from the Pliocene epoch, a mere 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago.

Background climate factors were similar to today, and like today, CO2 was around 400 parts per million.

At the time, temperatures were about 3C to 4C warmer than today, sea levels were about 20 metres higher, and there were trees in Antarctica.

Climate science is a conspiracy of the ‘elites’

ABC Q&A

@QandA

We’ve had a pause in warming & NASA corrupted data, says Malcolm Roberts. @ProfBrianCox examines the graphs #QandA

This one has many guises but basically says that there’s a group of governments and global elites that stand to benefit from hoaxing the world into believing the climate is changing.

It’s not that we should inherently trust governments, but instead that we should have a healthy scepticism of their competence.

To pull off this feat, so the conspiracy goes, they’ve conscripted groups including NASA, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the UK Met Office, the CIA, thousands of climate scientists and universities wordwide, among a raft of others.

A well-known internet meme summarises it thusly:

“The plot: 97 per cent of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.”

If you meet this zombie, the best advice is to run.

The reality is that not acting on climate change will punish the poor. The IPCC predicts millions will be displaced if warming hits 2 degrees.

Many of those will be in low-lying areas of developing nations including Bangladesh, and Australia’s island neighbours in the South Pacific.

Increases in extreme weather events also disproportionately affect areas with poor housing and infrastructure, and where subsistence farmers can be quickly undone by drought.

CO2 has historically followed, not caused warming.

An Inconvenient Truth (5/10) Movie CLIP

YOUTUBE: An Inconvenient Truth

This zombie mistakenly tries to discredit climate science by looking for holes in Al Gore’s movie an Inconvenient Truth. But it’s just a movie, zombie.

It is true that CO2 has risen after the temperature has started going up, during some periods of warming throughout history.

But the conclusion that therefore CO2 doesn’t cause warming, isn’t sound.

As discussed above, there are many forcings that cause climate change.

And there are things called positive feedback loops.

So for instance, deglaciation that began around 20,000 years ago was initially caused by changes in Earth’s orbit of the Sun.

This initial temperature increase warmed the oceans, and warmer oceans, as research shows, release more CO2.

That CO2 then increased in the atmosphere, and in turn created even more warming, that in turn released more CO2 from the oceans — a positive feedback, according to Professor Steffen and Dr Dean.

“These positive carbon cycle feedbacks initially follow temperature rises, but then amplify them by causing further warming.”

And CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas that is involved.

“Warmer temperatures can also melt permafrost [frozen subsoil] in the Arctic, causing the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas,” they said.

Climate scientists are only in it for the money

Back in the mid-1990s, a now controversial Hollywood actor paraphrased Baudelaire: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

If you were born around the time that movie was released, and you’d decided to study an environmental science or related degree at university, you’d be finishing your undergraduate degree about now and facing a choice.

On the one hand, you could take a graduate job in the mining sector where you could earn anything from $51,000 to $120,000+, for fly-in-fly-out and remote work in your first year out of university.

On the other, you could stay and complete an honours year which pays nothing.

If masochism is your thing, having completed that honours year, you could then take on a three-year-minimum PhD, which also pays the princely sum of nothing.

With your PhD complete and having spent a minimum four years earning next to nothing, you could then apply for post-doctorate research positions.

But they still probably won’t pay as well as that graduate job with the mines. Which by the way is now paying much more because you’ve been there going on five years and you’re no longer on a graduate’s salary.

Apart from the fact that climate scientists don’t earn any more than other researchers, the idea that you go into research for the money is the greatest trick the anti-climate-science lobby ever pulled.

As Professor Steffen and Dr Dean pointed out, science “isn’t a particularly lucrative profession”.

“According to the ABS, people employed in full-time jobs related to professional, scientific and technical services earned an average of $1,872 per week in the year to November 2018,” they said.

“This is more than some industries, but less than some other industries, such as mining, which paid on average $2,696 per week to full-time employees over the same period.”

The fossil fuel industry is worth nearly $5 trillion, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report from 2014.

Like with most things, when it comes to climate science, the devil is in the details.

Oh, and Dad, watch this.

Jungle Urban Legend

I came upon a short article about the “urban myth” of the lost, or relic, Japanese soldier who fought on alone long after the end of WWI.

It seems the story’s spread was due more to an episode of Gilligan’s Island than to the facts about Lt Onoda, who was finally found and repatriated from the Philippines in 1974.

In 1984 I was building small village water supplies in Western Province of Solomon Islands. In the jungle on the island of Vella Lavella I found plasticised paper notes in Japanese.

Come Home. The War is Over.

These had been dropped a few years before to convince one such soldier, believed at the time to be on Vella Lavella, to surrender himself.    
It turned out there had been a local legend of a lost soldier on the island, but I could not establish for certain how long the story had existed 
My enquiries and conversations with local people and expats who had lived there for a long time finally led me to believe that the claims of his existence may have been made up, probably after the news of Lt Onoda being found in the Philippines.  Someone saw the business opportunity, perhaps.
What is certainly true is that quite a lot of money was spent locally hiring guides for, and accommodating  search parties to look for the lost soldier and for the airdrops of leaflets that were made.
No one was ever found.  Nor, as far as I am aware was any evidence of his existence.