Co‐hosted by the Grantham Institute, a Royal Meteorological Society meeting was held on 18 November 2019 to discuss climate change around the globe and the two recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special reports (SR) (IPCC, 2019a,b). The meeting's presentations and panel discussions covered the current state of knowledge on climate change and the options for action.

Andy Challinor (University of Leeds) chaired the first session focused on the SR titled ‘Climate Change and Land’. This session aimed to identify the links and interactions between climate change, land, ecosystems and food security, as well as provide actionable science from the SR.

Joanna House (University of Bristol) outlined the key messages from the land–climate interactions chapter (IPCC, 2019b). Land is both at risk from and contributes to climate change through processes shown in Figure 1. The actionable science included sustainable farming practices and land management, improved greenhouse gas inventories for agriculture and forestry, carbon sinks and sources, choice of bioenergy based on land availability and reduction in deforestation and of high carbon stores (Kindermann et al., 2008). Katerina Michaelides (University of Bristol) presented on land degradation and desertification caused by direct and indirect human activities, explaining how climate change is seen as a threat multiplier. Land degradation can be reversed by local sustainable land management, but desertification is harder to reverse and thus needs prevention (Zucca et al., 2017).

Challinor presented ‘Food Security’ on behalf of Professor Tim Benton. Several aspects of the food system were identified as potentially at risk; climate change can explain some of the pressure on food security, but food production currently further enhances climate change. ‘Risk management and synergies’ was presented by Pete Smith (University of Aberdeen). Land is part of the solution to climate change, but as a limited resource, it cannot be used alone for mitigation. Sustainable land management, dietary changes and reduction of food waste will be important mitigation measures (Stehfest et al., 2009; Venkat, 2011). A flexible, adaptive and interactive approach that involves indigenous and local people alongside scientific knowledge was identified as key.

The session concluded with a panel discussion involving Alienor Lavergne (Imperial College London), Minette Batters (National Farmers Union) and Belinda Howell (Decarbonize). The discussion points included reduction of emissions from agriculture, food waste and deforestation; the drive towards UK net zero; strategy for water storage; and emission policies that do not stop at national borders.

Corinne Le Quere (University of East Anglia) then chaired a session addressing the SR on ‘The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’ (IPCC, 2019a). This report has high relevance given the increased public perception of the importance of oceans following the BBC Blue Planet series.

Michael Meredith (British Antarctic Survey) emphasised the importance of oceans and polar and glacial regions as we all depend on the services of these systems, either directly or indirectly. The current levels of warming and melting in these regions are unprecedented and human induced. Phil Williamson (University of East Anglia) discussed how climate change alters oceans, marine ecosystems and the dependent communities. The projected outlook for many marine ecosystems is fairly bleak if current emission trends continue. Matthew Collins (University of Exeter) explained the growing scientific evidence that the occurrence of extreme events is undoubtedly increasing. Sea level rise is likely to continue, almost independent of the future climate scenario pathway that we take, as this change is now ‘baked’ into our climate system.

The session ended with a panel discussion, with panellists Melanie Austen (Plymouth Marine Laboratory), Andrew Russel (Committee on Climate Change) and Jane Rumble (Foreign and Commonwealth Office). There were particularly interesting discussions around ‘Why aren't we taking action already?’ Explanations included economics, changing social balances and lack of individual responsibility. Le Quere concluded by remarking that we currently have all the technology and the knowledge to act on climate change mitigation and adaptation and that the value of the environment is perceived to be higher now than it has ever been. We therefore need coordination within and between governments to start taking more action (Gifford, 2011).

The final session was a panel discussion on ‘Taking action on the evidence’, chaired by Richard Betts (Met Office) who reiterated the urgency of both climate change mitigation to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and adaptation to protect society from the effects of climate change that are already locked in.

Emily Shuckburgh (University of Cambridge) emphasised the value of the IPCC reports. The 1.5°C report (IPCC, 2018) was the first with a real sense of urgency, which – along with the growing public awareness of climate change – is galvanising businesses to take action. She noted the need for new directions in the climate discussions, particularly exploration of the trade‐offs and unintended consequences of mitigation measures. Damitha Adikaari (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) represented the government, stating the need for continued collaboration to overcome the challenges involved with introducing legislation and rapid systems change.

Stephen Cornelius spoke for non‐government organisations, explaining the role of the World Wildlife Foundation in holding governments and businesses accountable over climate change through the use of the IPCC summaries for policymakers (e.g. IPCC, 2019a). A significant challenge will be encouraging governments to convert science into policy (Watson, 2005). Henry Dimbleby (Leon) spoke for industry, pointing out that some businesses, more than others, will struggle to take positive action without reducing profits. Another challenge will be finding the right approach to decision‐making; citizens’ assemblies will be a valuable tool in making recommendations for policy.

Questions focused on the reality of bringing about change. Acknowledgment of climate change often does not translate into meaningful policy change, with outdated governmental policies on fossil fuels cited as an example. In order to develop coherent climate change strategies, politicians need more education and more capacity to drive change at all levels of government. Careful regulation is needed to level the playing field for businesses to take action, with businesses that fail to adapt and mitigate facing multiple risks, including litigation. We need to move beyond gross domestic product to measure progress and account for the interests of future generations now and to move beyond domestic policy to climate leadership on an international stage.

由格兰瑟姆研究所（Grantham Institute）共同主办的皇家气象学会会议于2019年11月18日举行，讨论全球气候变化以及最近发布的两份政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）特别报告（IPCC，  2019a，b）。会议的演讲和小组讨论涵盖了有关气候变化的当前知识水平以及采取的行动方案。

利兹大学的安迪·查林诺（Andy Challinor）主持了第一届会议，会议主题是“气候变化与土地”。本届会议旨在确定气候变化，土地，生态系统和粮食安全之间的联系和相互作用，并提供来自可持续发展研究的可行科学。

乔安娜·豪斯（Joanna House）（布里斯托大学）概述了土地-气候相互作用章节（IPCC，  2019b）的主要信息。通过图1所示的过程，土地既面临着气候变化的风险，又为气候变化做出了贡献。可行的科学包括可持续的农业实践和土地管理，改进的农业和林业温室气体清单，碳汇和碳源，根据土地可用性选择生物能源以及减少森林砍伐和高碳储量（Kindermann等，  2008）。卡特琳娜·迈克尔德（Katerina Michaelides）（布里斯托大学）介绍了直接和间接人类活动造成的土地退化和荒漠化，解释了气候变化如何被视为威胁的倍增器。土地退化可以通过当地可持续的土地管理来逆转，但荒漠化更难逆转，因此需要预防（Zucca et al。，  2017）。

Challinor代表Tim Benton教授介绍了“粮食安全”。粮食系统的几个方面被确定为潜在危险；气候变化可以解释一些对粮食安全的压力，但是目前粮食生产进一步加剧了气候变化。皮特·史密斯（阿伯丁大学）提出了“风险管理和协同效应” 。土地是解决气候变化问题的一部分，但作为一种有限的资源，它不能单独用于缓解气候变化。可持续土地管理，饮食变化和减少食物浪费将是重要的缓解措施（Stehfest等，  2009； Venkat，  2011））。关键是要采用一种灵活，适应性和互动性强的方法，使土著和地方人民以及科学知识参与其中。

会议的闭幕讨论由Alienor Lavergne（伦敦帝国学院），Minette Batters（全国农民联盟）和Belinda Howell（脱碳）组成。讨论重点包括减少农业，粮食浪费和森林砍伐的排放；走向英国净零的动力；蓄水策略；以及不止国界的排放政策。

随后，Corinne Le Quere（东英吉利大学）主持了一场关于``气候变化中的海洋和冰冻圈''SR（IPCC，  2019a）的会议。鉴于公众对BBC蓝色星球系列之后海洋重要性的认识日益提高，因此该报告具有高度相关性。

Michael Meredith（英国南极调查局）强调了海洋以及极地和冰川地区的重要性，因为我们都直接或间接地依赖于这些系统的服务。这些地区目前的变暖和融化程度是空前的，是人为诱发的。菲尔·威廉姆森（Phil Williamson）（东英吉利大学）讨论了气候变化如何改变海洋，海洋生态系统和依附社区。如果目前的排放趋势持续下去，许多海洋生态系统的预计前景将十分黯淡。马修·柯林斯（埃克塞特大学）解释了越来越多的科学证据，表明极端事件的发生无疑正在增加。海平面上升可能会继续，几乎与我们采取的未来气候情景路径无关，因为这种变化现在已经“烙印”到了我们的气候系统中。

会议以小组讨论结束，小组成员包括Melanie Austen（普利茅斯海洋实验室），Andrew Russel（气候变化委员会）和Jane Rumble（外交和联邦办公室）。围绕“为什么我们不采取行动？”的讨论特别有趣。解释包括经济学，不断变化的社会平衡和缺乏个人责任感。勒奎尔在总结时指出，我们目前拥有应对气候变化减缓和适应的所有技术和知识，而现在人们认为环境的价值比以往任何时候都更高。因此，我们需要政府内部和政府之间的协调，以开始采取更多行动（Gifford，  2011年）。

最后的会议是由理查德·贝茨（Richard Betts）（会议厅）主持的关于“对证据采取行动”的小组讨论，他重申了缓解气候变化以在2050年前实现净零排放以及适应保护社会免受气候影响的紧迫性已锁定的更改。

Emily Shuckburgh（剑桥大学）强调了IPCC报告的价值。1.5°C的报告（IPCC，  2018年）是第一份真正具有紧迫感的报告，随着公众对气候变化意识的增强，这促使企业采取行动。她指出，在气候讨论中需要新的方向，尤其是探索权衡和减缓措施的意想不到的后果。商业，能源和工业战略部Damitha Adikaari代表政府，指出需要持续合作以克服立法和快速系统变更方面的挑战。

斯蒂芬·科尼利厄斯（Stephen Cornelius）代表非政府组织发言，解释了世界野生动物基金会在通过使用政策制定者对政府决策者的总结中使政府和企业对气候变化负责的作用（例如IPCC，  2019a）。一个重大挑战将是鼓励政府将科学转化为政策（Watson，  2005年）。亨利·迪姆布勒比（Leon）在工业界发言时指出，有些企业比其他企业要努力采取积极行动而不降低利润。另一个挑战将是找到正确的决策方法。公民大会将是提出政策建议的宝贵工具。

问题集中在带来变革的现实上。承认气候变化通常不会转化为有意义的政策变化，以政府对化石燃料的过时政策为例。为了制定一致的气候变化战略，政客需要更多的教育和更多的能力来推动各级政府的变革。需要谨慎的监管来为企业采取行动提供公平的竞争环境，而那些无法适应和缓解这些风险的企业将面临包括诉讼在内的多种风险。我们需要超越国内生产总值来衡量进步，并为子孙后代谋利益，并超越国内政策，在国际舞台上超越气候领导地位。