Global warming or upcoming ice age
- Thread starter Fundaamental
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
read this to, which goes with the above 3 min vid . As water levels rise and exposed rocks emerge under the ice, more carbon gets trapped from the atmosphere which comes down trapped in the rain, it then gets embedded into the rock or the fresh water .
And boom it gets colder and the thermostatic switch is flicked to ice age.
Melting Glaciers Are Helping Capture Carbon
Glaciers melting under the weight of global warming can help sequester carbon, making such watersheds a previously unrecognized CO2 sink.
AUG 19, 2019 3:00 PM
Melting Glaciers Are Helping Capture Carbon
Glaciers melting under the weight of global warming can help sequester carbon, making such watersheds a previously unrecognized CO2 sink.
KYRA ST. PIERRE
SAVE
FULL-TILT CHAOS HAS descended on the Arctic, a region that’s now warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. This summer it’s been sweltering under unprecedented heat, and wildfires have so far consumed 2.4 million acres in Alaska alone, releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide. It’s so hot up there that thunderstorms, more often seen in tropical climes, are striking near the North Pole.
Add to this bizarro affair a strange, perhaps counterintuitive finding in the far north of Canada, right next to Greenland. Researchers have found that watersheds fed by melting glaciers are actually soaking up a significant amount of carbon dioxide, in contrast to your typical river, which emits carbon dioxide. On average during the 2015 melting season, per square meter (to be clear, not in total) these glacial rivers consumed twice as much CO2 as the Amazon rainforest. So ironically enough, glaciers melting under the weight of global warming can help sequester carbon, making such watersheds a previously unrecognized CO2 sink.
If you were looking for a way out of our impending climate doom, however, this ain’t it. For one, the sequestering powers of glacial meltwater can't keep up with our out-of-control emissions, or even other climate change-induced emissions from the Arctic like melting permafrost. And if we keep melting glaciers, we’ll run out of meltwater too. Still, the findings are a key piece in understanding the monumentally complex carbon cycle on this planet.
And boom it gets colder and the thermostatic switch is flicked to ice age.
Melting Glaciers Are Helping Capture Carbon
Glaciers melting under the weight of global warming can help sequester carbon, making such watersheds a previously unrecognized CO2 sink.
AUG 19, 2019 3:00 PM
Melting Glaciers Are Helping Capture Carbon
Glaciers melting under the weight of global warming can help sequester carbon, making such watersheds a previously unrecognized CO2 sink.
KYRA ST. PIERRE
SAVE
FULL-TILT CHAOS HAS descended on the Arctic, a region that’s now warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. This summer it’s been sweltering under unprecedented heat, and wildfires have so far consumed 2.4 million acres in Alaska alone, releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide. It’s so hot up there that thunderstorms, more often seen in tropical climes, are striking near the North Pole.
Add to this bizarro affair a strange, perhaps counterintuitive finding in the far north of Canada, right next to Greenland. Researchers have found that watersheds fed by melting glaciers are actually soaking up a significant amount of carbon dioxide, in contrast to your typical river, which emits carbon dioxide. On average during the 2015 melting season, per square meter (to be clear, not in total) these glacial rivers consumed twice as much CO2 as the Amazon rainforest. So ironically enough, glaciers melting under the weight of global warming can help sequester carbon, making such watersheds a previously unrecognized CO2 sink.
If you were looking for a way out of our impending climate doom, however, this ain’t it. For one, the sequestering powers of glacial meltwater can't keep up with our out-of-control emissions, or even other climate change-induced emissions from the Arctic like melting permafrost. And if we keep melting glaciers, we’ll run out of meltwater too. Still, the findings are a key piece in understanding the monumentally complex carbon cycle on this planet.
https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentar...to-a-new-ice-age-why-is-no-one-doing-anything
We've Known For Years Global Warming Could Lead To A New Ice Age. Why Is No One Doing Anything?
Perhaps they'll inherit the earth?
Peter & J. Clement / Science Source
By Dan Kennedy
March 24, 2021
SHARE
Call it a cascade of calamitous events.
According to scientists, a “cold blob” of water has formed south of Greenland. The blob’s origins can be traced to rapidly melting glaciers, which in turn is the consequence of global warming. The blob could impede the flow of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north. And if that happens, the temperature in Europe may drop steeply, hurricanes may become more intense, and sea levels on the East Coast of the United States may rise even more rapidly than they are already.
“We’re all wishing it’s not true,” Peter de Menocal, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, told The New York Times earlier this month. “Because if that happens, it’s just a monstrous change.”
A monstrous change indeed — and one that we’ve known about for decades. The possibility that climate change could flip and, in just a matter of years, plunge part of the world into a new ice age is something that has occasionally made its way into the media. Yet the world has done very little about it. Massive amounts of greenhouse gases are still being pumped into the atmosphere. The climate is getting warmer and weirder.
So let’s turn the wayback machine to January 1998. That’s when The Atlantic, known then as The Atlantic Monthly, published a cover story called “The Great Climate Flip-Flop” by William H. Calvin, a theoretical neurophysiologist based at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Calvin’s article made an indelible impression on me — so much so that I’ve been storing it somewhere in the back of my head for all these years. After the Times published its recent story on the cold blob, I dug up Calvin’s article from a library database so I could see how they compared. The match was chilling, so to speak.
“Of this much we’re sure: Global climate flip-flops have frequently happened in the past, and they’re likely to happen again,” Calvin wrote. “It’s also clear that sufficient global warming could trigger an abrupt cooling in at least two ways — by increasing high-latitude rainfall or by melting Greenland’s ice, both of which could put enough fresh water into the ocean surface to suppress flushing.” (“Flushing” is a reference to the process by which the Gulf Stream carries warm water to the north, sinks to the bottom of the ocean, and returns as cold water to the south.)
Calvin’s article is filled with frightening details, including evidence that natural global warming in millenia past triggered ice ages in exactly the same way he was warning us about. Of course, those previous warm spells were not accelerated by human activity. Calvin also suggested that the flip-flop would not be gradual; once under way, it could wreak its havoc in just a few years.
As for what would happen in the aftermath, Calvin foresaw starvation, a population crash, and powerful countries invading poorer ones in order to commandeer their food supplies. “The effects of an abrupt cold last for centuries,” he wrote. “They might not be the end of Homo sapiens — written knowledge and elementary education might well endure — but the world after such a population crash would certainly be full of despotic governments that hated their neighbors because of recent atrocities. Recovery would be very slow.”
Unfortunately, the effect Calvin’s article had on me did not extend to anyone with the power and influence to do something about it.
For instance, consider the reaction of the late Michael Kelly, who took over as The Atlantic’s editor about a year after Calvin’s story was published. Kelly threw a party at the magazine’s headquarters in Boston — can we agree that it never should have been moved to Washington? — and I brought up Calvin’s work, perhaps hoping that Kelly was as energized as I was by it and was planning to run some follow-ups.
“Interesting if true” is how I recall his semi-dismissive reaction. He was hardly alone, of course.
So now scientists are actually taking measurements of what’s happening with the Gulf Stream, and the Times is taking notice. Its story was accompanied by a vibrant multimedia treatment, but the message was muddled. Data show that Europe might actually get warmer rather than colder. Or maybe Europe will get colder, but that “might ultimately be muted or possibly canceled out by continued global heating.”
This is good, careful reporting, reflecting the work and words of scientists who are by nature cautious. And yet all of it seems insufficient given the cataclysmic events we may be facing.
The Times does manage to bring on the drama by quoting from a story it published in 1998, around the same time that Calvin’s article appeared in The Atlantic. That’s when the Times profiled Wallace S. Broecker, whom it described in its headline as the “Iconoclastic Guru Of The Climate Debate.”
“The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks,” Broecker said.
We should have listened to Broecker. We should have listened to Calvin. We now need to take drastic measures as quickly as possible. Let’s just hope that they don’t have to be quite as drastic as some of Calvin’s more extreme ideas, like bombing the fjords of Greenland to stop the flow of fresh water into the ocean.
Re-entering the Paris climate agreement is nice, and was a necessary first step. But it’s not going to do much to prevent a new ice age — or the unimaginable human suffering that would come with it.
GBH News contributor Dan Kennedy’s blog, Media Nation, is online at dankennedy.net.
We've Known For Years Global Warming Could Lead To A New Ice Age. Why Is No One Doing Anything?
Peter & J. Clement / Science Source
By Dan Kennedy
March 24, 2021
SHARE
Call it a cascade of calamitous events.
According to scientists, a “cold blob” of water has formed south of Greenland. The blob’s origins can be traced to rapidly melting glaciers, which in turn is the consequence of global warming. The blob could impede the flow of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north. And if that happens, the temperature in Europe may drop steeply, hurricanes may become more intense, and sea levels on the East Coast of the United States may rise even more rapidly than they are already.
“We’re all wishing it’s not true,” Peter de Menocal, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, told The New York Times earlier this month. “Because if that happens, it’s just a monstrous change.”
A monstrous change indeed — and one that we’ve known about for decades. The possibility that climate change could flip and, in just a matter of years, plunge part of the world into a new ice age is something that has occasionally made its way into the media. Yet the world has done very little about it. Massive amounts of greenhouse gases are still being pumped into the atmosphere. The climate is getting warmer and weirder.
So let’s turn the wayback machine to January 1998. That’s when The Atlantic, known then as The Atlantic Monthly, published a cover story called “The Great Climate Flip-Flop” by William H. Calvin, a theoretical neurophysiologist based at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Calvin’s article made an indelible impression on me — so much so that I’ve been storing it somewhere in the back of my head for all these years. After the Times published its recent story on the cold blob, I dug up Calvin’s article from a library database so I could see how they compared. The match was chilling, so to speak.
“Of this much we’re sure: Global climate flip-flops have frequently happened in the past, and they’re likely to happen again,” Calvin wrote. “It’s also clear that sufficient global warming could trigger an abrupt cooling in at least two ways — by increasing high-latitude rainfall or by melting Greenland’s ice, both of which could put enough fresh water into the ocean surface to suppress flushing.” (“Flushing” is a reference to the process by which the Gulf Stream carries warm water to the north, sinks to the bottom of the ocean, and returns as cold water to the south.)
Calvin’s article is filled with frightening details, including evidence that natural global warming in millenia past triggered ice ages in exactly the same way he was warning us about. Of course, those previous warm spells were not accelerated by human activity. Calvin also suggested that the flip-flop would not be gradual; once under way, it could wreak its havoc in just a few years.
As for what would happen in the aftermath, Calvin foresaw starvation, a population crash, and powerful countries invading poorer ones in order to commandeer their food supplies. “The effects of an abrupt cold last for centuries,” he wrote. “They might not be the end of Homo sapiens — written knowledge and elementary education might well endure — but the world after such a population crash would certainly be full of despotic governments that hated their neighbors because of recent atrocities. Recovery would be very slow.”
Unfortunately, the effect Calvin’s article had on me did not extend to anyone with the power and influence to do something about it.
For instance, consider the reaction of the late Michael Kelly, who took over as The Atlantic’s editor about a year after Calvin’s story was published. Kelly threw a party at the magazine’s headquarters in Boston — can we agree that it never should have been moved to Washington? — and I brought up Calvin’s work, perhaps hoping that Kelly was as energized as I was by it and was planning to run some follow-ups.
“Interesting if true” is how I recall his semi-dismissive reaction. He was hardly alone, of course.
So now scientists are actually taking measurements of what’s happening with the Gulf Stream, and the Times is taking notice. Its story was accompanied by a vibrant multimedia treatment, but the message was muddled. Data show that Europe might actually get warmer rather than colder. Or maybe Europe will get colder, but that “might ultimately be muted or possibly canceled out by continued global heating.”
This is good, careful reporting, reflecting the work and words of scientists who are by nature cautious. And yet all of it seems insufficient given the cataclysmic events we may be facing.
The Times does manage to bring on the drama by quoting from a story it published in 1998, around the same time that Calvin’s article appeared in The Atlantic. That’s when the Times profiled Wallace S. Broecker, whom it described in its headline as the “Iconoclastic Guru Of The Climate Debate.”
“The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks,” Broecker said.
We should have listened to Broecker. We should have listened to Calvin. We now need to take drastic measures as quickly as possible. Let’s just hope that they don’t have to be quite as drastic as some of Calvin’s more extreme ideas, like bombing the fjords of Greenland to stop the flow of fresh water into the ocean.
Re-entering the Paris climate agreement is nice, and was a necessary first step. But it’s not going to do much to prevent a new ice age — or the unimaginable human suffering that would come with it.
GBH News contributor Dan Kennedy’s blog, Media Nation, is online at dankennedy.net.
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/artic...oReport&src_src=partner&src_cmp=BonginoReport
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/artic...oReport&src_src=partner&src_cmp=BonginoReport
I have watched a few documentaries on the melting arctic ice. And this is causing a weakening of the jet stream. Which then raises havoc with the weather. Like 121 degrees F in Canada this summer.
This makes me believe the Lord will return fairly soon. If this world is to be uninhabitable, it will not be by our doing.
This makes me believe the Lord will return fairly soon. If this world is to be uninhabitable, it will not be by our doing.
The past two decades have seen several widespread coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef,
with four mass bleaching events in the last seven years. Coral bleaching is caused by warming ocean
temperatures, and kills the corals, which can be thousands of years old... so not a cyclic event. source
2022
Coral bleaching was observed along the length of the Reef, with the Northern and Central regions experiencing
extreme bleaching. In the South, bleaching was mostly minor. This mass bleaching event was particularly
concerning because it occurred during a La Niña summer, which typically brings cooler, wetter conditions.
2020
Widespread severe bleaching was detected across many regions of the Great Barrier Reef. Of the 1,036
reefs surveyed from the air, 60% suffered moderate or severe bleaching. On-water monitoring capabilities
were restricted due to the Covid-19 pandemic, so limited data on coral mortality was collected.
2017
The Reef experienced unprecedented back-to-back (2016 and 2017) bleaching, collectively affecting
two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef. The central third of the Great Barrier Reef was severely affected
in early 2017, due to unusually warm sea surface temperature and accumulated heat stress. The
southern sector was spared both years.
2016
In 2016, the Far Northern management area between Cape York and Port Douglas experienced widespread
and severe bleaching due to record ocean temperatures. This led to record widespread coral bleaching on
the Reef, with overall coral mortality at 22%. Bleaching in southern parts of the Reef was less severe.
2006
A bleaching event largely confined to the southern part of the Reef, particularly around the Keppel Islands,
took place in January and February 2006. The degree of bleaching was worse than in previous years, with up
to 98% of corals bleached on some reefs.
2002
Across the 641 reefs observed, 54% bleached in the summer of 2001-2002. This mass bleaching event
was slightly more severe than the 1997-1998 event, however reef recovery was general good with
fewer than 5% of reefs suffering high mortality.
1998
The summer of 1997-1998 was one of the hottest recorded on the Reef in the 20th century.
Mild bleaching was observed in late January and intensified in February and March. Most reefs
recovered fully with less than 5% of inshore reefs suffering high coral mortality, however the most
severely affected reefs in the Palm Island area saw up to 70% of corals die.
with four mass bleaching events in the last seven years. Coral bleaching is caused by warming ocean
temperatures, and kills the corals, which can be thousands of years old... so not a cyclic event. source
2022
Coral bleaching was observed along the length of the Reef, with the Northern and Central regions experiencing
extreme bleaching. In the South, bleaching was mostly minor. This mass bleaching event was particularly
concerning because it occurred during a La Niña summer, which typically brings cooler, wetter conditions.
2020
Widespread severe bleaching was detected across many regions of the Great Barrier Reef. Of the 1,036
reefs surveyed from the air, 60% suffered moderate or severe bleaching. On-water monitoring capabilities
were restricted due to the Covid-19 pandemic, so limited data on coral mortality was collected.
2017
The Reef experienced unprecedented back-to-back (2016 and 2017) bleaching, collectively affecting
two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef. The central third of the Great Barrier Reef was severely affected
in early 2017, due to unusually warm sea surface temperature and accumulated heat stress. The
southern sector was spared both years.
2016
In 2016, the Far Northern management area between Cape York and Port Douglas experienced widespread
and severe bleaching due to record ocean temperatures. This led to record widespread coral bleaching on
the Reef, with overall coral mortality at 22%. Bleaching in southern parts of the Reef was less severe.
2006
A bleaching event largely confined to the southern part of the Reef, particularly around the Keppel Islands,
took place in January and February 2006. The degree of bleaching was worse than in previous years, with up
to 98% of corals bleached on some reefs.
2002
Across the 641 reefs observed, 54% bleached in the summer of 2001-2002. This mass bleaching event
was slightly more severe than the 1997-1998 event, however reef recovery was general good with
fewer than 5% of reefs suffering high mortality.
1998
The summer of 1997-1998 was one of the hottest recorded on the Reef in the 20th century.
Mild bleaching was observed in late January and intensified in February and March. Most reefs
recovered fully with less than 5% of inshore reefs suffering high coral mortality, however the most
severely affected reefs in the Palm Island area saw up to 70% of corals die.
-
1
- Show all
@iamsoandso I am watching a movie documentary right now on corals called Chasing Coral (<= imdb link)
Destruction of corals due to climate change is breathtakingly presented in this painstakingly told TV show.
This one of a kind reality show would move any sane human being. Accidentally found this on Netflix...
Destruction of corals due to climate change is breathtakingly presented in this painstakingly told TV show.
This one of a kind reality show would move any sane human being. Accidentally found this on Netflix...
-
2
- Show all
I'll give it a look,,it rained a little here in east Texas but not enough to lift the burn ban. This is the first year in my whole life that I've gone the whole summer and never mowed the lawn even once. I have about ten dead trees in my yard, the smaller one I think I can cut down but three or four of them I'll have to get a licensed,bonded,insured tree company to cut down(city ordnance=thanks Texas),,lowest bid so far is 2,500. per tree...I give up,lol...
-
1
- Show all
Global warming, and Climate Change, is not a thing.
Yep, it's getting hotter everywhere, and it's also getting colder and the weather is completely outta whack, BUT ... it has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon or pollution or any kind of natural historical weather patterns, etc., etc., etc.
What is happening is the weather is being flagrantly tampered with by those who operate the HAARP arrays located in multiple places all over the world.
HAARP and weather modification by man and man's technology is what we are all witnessing.
Plain and simple.
It is destroying our world and the evil one is behind it all.
Yep, it's getting hotter everywhere, and it's also getting colder and the weather is completely outta whack, BUT ... it has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon or pollution or any kind of natural historical weather patterns, etc., etc., etc.
What is happening is the weather is being flagrantly tampered with by those who operate the HAARP arrays located in multiple places all over the world.
HAARP and weather modification by man and man's technology is what we are all witnessing.
Plain and simple.
It is destroying our world and the evil one is behind it all.
We at the BBC love our British politicians, cough cough
Rumors have it James may be the next foreign secretary 😊
Home Secretary James Cleverly apologises for 'ironic joke' about spiking wife's drink with a rape date drug
Updated 55 minutes ago
Home Secretary James Cleverly has apologised for making an "ironic joke" about spiking his wife's drink at a Downing Street reception.
He reportedly said the ideal spouse was "someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there".
According to the Sunday Mirror, he also mentioned Rohypnol - a so-called "date rape" drug.
Senior Labour party figures have described the comments as "appalling".
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said spiking - putting alcohol or drugs in someone's drink or body without their consent - was a "disturbing and serious crime which is having a devastating impact on young women's lives".
"It is truly unbelievable that the home secretary made such appalling jokes on the very same day the government announced a new policy on spiking," she added.
And charity Women's Aid said political leaders were relied upon to "take action to end violence against women and girls, and the misogyny that underpins it".
"It is vital that spiking survivors see ministers treating the subject seriously and not downplaying the reality so many women face," it said on X.
Another women's rights organisation, the Fawcett Society, called on Mr Cleverly to resign, asking: "How can we trust him to seriously address violence against women and girls?"
In a statement, it said: "It's sickening that the senior minister in charge of keeping women safe thinks that something as terrifying as drugging women is a laughing matter."
A spokesman for the home secretary said: "In what was always understood as a private conversation, James, the home secretary tackling spiking, made what was clearly meant to be an ironic joke - for which he apologises."
A source told the BBC he did not recollect the exact wording he had used, because it was a private off-the-record event, but recognised that any joke along those lines was inappropriate - which was why he was apologising.
The incident happened on 18 December, when political journalists were invited to a drinks reception in 10 Downing Street along with political aides, ministers and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
On the same day, Mr Cleverly had promoted a raft of new government measures to tackle spiking and described it as a "perverse crime".
According to reports first published by the Sunday Mirror newspaper, Mr Cleverly told some female guests there that "a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night" was "not really illegal if it's only a little bit".
It also says he laughed that the secret to a long marriage was ensuring your spouse was "someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there".
Conversations at Downing Street receptions are usually considered "off the record" - and therefore not reported on - but the Sunday Mirror said it had decided to break this convention because of Mr Cleverly's position and the content of his remarks.
Mr Cleverly met his wife at university and the couple have two children.
Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, Alex Davies-Jones, said: "If the home secretary is serious about tackling spiking, and violence against women and girls, then that requires a full cultural change.
"The 'banter' needs to stop and it has to start at the top."
Mr Cleverly also had to apologise last month for using "unparliamentary" language to describe a Labour MP.
Rumors have it James may be the next foreign secretary 😊
Home Secretary James Cleverly apologises for 'ironic joke' about spiking wife's drink with a rape date drug
- By Ione Wells
- Political correspondent
Updated 55 minutes ago
Home Secretary James Cleverly has apologised for making an "ironic joke" about spiking his wife's drink at a Downing Street reception.
He reportedly said the ideal spouse was "someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there".
According to the Sunday Mirror, he also mentioned Rohypnol - a so-called "date rape" drug.
Senior Labour party figures have described the comments as "appalling".
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said spiking - putting alcohol or drugs in someone's drink or body without their consent - was a "disturbing and serious crime which is having a devastating impact on young women's lives".
"It is truly unbelievable that the home secretary made such appalling jokes on the very same day the government announced a new policy on spiking," she added.
And charity Women's Aid said political leaders were relied upon to "take action to end violence against women and girls, and the misogyny that underpins it".
"It is vital that spiking survivors see ministers treating the subject seriously and not downplaying the reality so many women face," it said on X.
Another women's rights organisation, the Fawcett Society, called on Mr Cleverly to resign, asking: "How can we trust him to seriously address violence against women and girls?"
In a statement, it said: "It's sickening that the senior minister in charge of keeping women safe thinks that something as terrifying as drugging women is a laughing matter."
A spokesman for the home secretary said: "In what was always understood as a private conversation, James, the home secretary tackling spiking, made what was clearly meant to be an ironic joke - for which he apologises."
A source told the BBC he did not recollect the exact wording he had used, because it was a private off-the-record event, but recognised that any joke along those lines was inappropriate - which was why he was apologising.
The incident happened on 18 December, when political journalists were invited to a drinks reception in 10 Downing Street along with political aides, ministers and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
On the same day, Mr Cleverly had promoted a raft of new government measures to tackle spiking and described it as a "perverse crime".
According to reports first published by the Sunday Mirror newspaper, Mr Cleverly told some female guests there that "a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night" was "not really illegal if it's only a little bit".
It also says he laughed that the secret to a long marriage was ensuring your spouse was "someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there".
Conversations at Downing Street receptions are usually considered "off the record" - and therefore not reported on - but the Sunday Mirror said it had decided to break this convention because of Mr Cleverly's position and the content of his remarks.
Mr Cleverly met his wife at university and the couple have two children.
Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, Alex Davies-Jones, said: "If the home secretary is serious about tackling spiking, and violence against women and girls, then that requires a full cultural change.
"The 'banter' needs to stop and it has to start at the top."
Mr Cleverly also had to apologise last month for using "unparliamentary" language to describe a Labour MP.