［目的/意义］ 全球复杂问题日益依赖交叉科学和国际合作解决，但现有研究缺乏整合多维度指标、区分不同合作模式的交叉科学国际科研合作态势测度框架，本研究试图为揭示不同合作模式下交叉科学国际合作多维态势提供方法论。［方法/过程］ 区分无国际合作、双边国际合作和多边国际合作3种合作模式，整合国际合作强度、国际合作广度、国际合作影响力和国际合作学科多样性4个具有递进逻辑的维度，构建一套交叉科学国际科研合作态势测度指标体系，并以气候变化领域为例开展实证分析。［结果/结论］ 研究发现，全球气候变化国际合作强度和广度持续增长，但2017年后增长趋势明显放缓，中美合作强度下降；多边国际合作显著提升学术影响力（CNCI均值1.55），远高于双边国际合作（1.02）和无国际合作（0.85）；气候变化核心学科（环境与生态、地球科学）国际合作发文量大但相对活跃度较低（RSI分别为-0.003和0.05）；中美、中欧国际合作中以中国主导为主，但学科分布不均衡。基于研究发现，从建立长期稳定合作机制、优先支持多边合作、实施学科差异化策略和优化区域布局4个方面提出针对性政策建议。

[Purpose/Significance] Increasing in interdisciplinary science and international cooperation to solve global complex problems, existing research lacks an integrated framework for measuring the trends of interdisciplinary international scientific collaboration that incorporates multi-dimensional indicators and distinguishes different collaboration patterns. [Method/Process] This study differentiated three collaboration patterns, including no international cooperation, bilateral international cooperation, and multilateral international cooperation. It integrated intensity, breadth, impact, and disciplinary diversity of international collaboration to construct a measurement indicator system for interdisciplinary international scientific collaboration trends. An empirical analysis was conducted using the field of climate change as a case study. [Result/Conclusion] The findings reveal that the intensity and breadth of international collaboration of global climate change research have continued to grow, however, the growth trend has significantly slowed down after 2017, with a decline in collaboration intensity between China and U.S. Multilateral international collaboration significantly enhances academic influence (average CNCI of 1.55), far exceeding bilateral international cooperation (1.02) and no international cooperation (0.85). Core disciplines (Environmental & Ecological Sciences, Earth & Planetary Sciences) in the field of climate change have high international collaborative publication volumes but relatively low collaborative activity levels (RSI values of -0.003 and 0.05, respectively). International collaborations of both Sino-U.S. and Sino-European are China-led with uneven disciplinary distributions. Based on these findings, we propose targeted policy recommendations in four areas: establishing long-term and stable collaboration mechanisms, prioritizing support for multilateral collaboration, implementing differentiated disciplinary strategies, and optimizing regional layouts.