In the summer of 2008, New York City lowered the threshold for activating its emergency heat plan.

The city had historically relied on the National Weather Service threshold of a heat index of 105 F (40.6 C), but they noticed that people were getting heat stroke at lower temperatures.

As part of a wider effort, they changed the alert threshold: it would trigger if the temperature reached 100 F (37.8 C) for a day, or 95 F (35 C) for two days in a row. When the threshold was reached, city officials conducted targeted outreach, including to vulnerable groups, like homeless people; alerted residents on their phones; launched measures to protect the power and water supply; and opened cooling centers.

Lowering this threshold correlated with a more than 50% reduction in hospitalizations for heat stroke and related illnesses on hot days.

New York's case study offers one of the clearest examples of an intervention that worked to protect people from deadly heat.

As the planet warms, we will need to find more of these solutions. The consensus among scientists is that the most effective way to avoid the worst health outcomes of climate change is to slow warming by reducing carbon emissions. Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit), for instance, would mean 11,600 fewer deaths due to wildfire smoke exposure in the U.S. annually, compared with warming of 5.4 F (3 C).

But even if we rapidly reduce emissions, climate change will have wide-ranging effects on our health

So what measures actually work to protect people's health? Live Science reviewed dozens of studies and talked with 19 climate and health experts at universities and health and climate associations, to identify the most promising solutions to two of the biggest climate-related threats: extreme heat and wildfire smoke.

Some interventions have demonstrated a reduction in deaths or disease at the population level, while others have used modeling to predict health impacts or rely on proxy measures.

"The strongest evidence is where these approaches reduce illness, hospital visits or death," said Charles Leonard, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, told Live Science, "not just heat exposure, pollution levels or other intermediate markers."

Most solutions do not offer the level of clarity of the New York example, however. Many reduce temperatures or alter human physiology in ways that are likely to decrease the number of heat-related deaths or cases of illness. But a deeper examination reveals limited evidence that many seemingly intuitive interventions, such as cooling centers, are effective on a societal level.

For both heat and wildfire smoke exposure, we analyzed the evidence to see which interventions have actually worked.

Extreme heat

Air conditioning and heat pumps

Evidence grade: Strong

One of the most common interventions for managing indoor temperatures is the use of mechanical systems with refrigerants, such as air conditioning or heat pumps.

Air conditioning has been tied to reduced hospital admissions in California and reduced heat-related deaths at Texas prisons. During a heat wave in Portugal, patients admitted to an AC-supported hospital had a 40% lower risk of dying than those in wards without AC. It is a clear way to impact health outcomes.

But AC can't be the whole solution.

"One of the most important lessons emerging from heat adaptation research is that no single intervention is sufficient on its own," said Shweta Arya, senior project manager for smart surfaces at the American Public Health Association's Center for Climate, Health and Equity, which leads the association's work on health and climate action.

While 90% of U.S. households used AC in 2020, the latest year for which energy survey data is available, it's not a cure-all. It is vulnerable to power outages, and it contributes to outdoor warming via added electricity demand and heat expelled from vents.

Additionally, just because people have AC doesn't mean they can afford to use it. This is known as the "heat or eat" dilemma: analysis of US household data have consistently shown families limit food purchases and take on debt to pay AC-linked energy bills.

"In many cases, the primary barrier to stay[ing] cool indoors is not access to cooling equipment but the ability to pay monthly energy bills," Pilar Botana Martinez, a research scientist at Boston University's Department of Environmental Health, told Live Science.

Shade, rest and hydration outdoors

Evidence grade: Strong

Staying indoors to avoid the heat is one way to reduce the health impacts of climate change, "but this is not a practical solution for everyone, especially those doing demanding jobs in very hot warehouses, on construction sites, in agricultural fields," Barrak Alahmad, director of the Occupational Health and Climate Change Program at Harvard University, told Live Science.

Nearly one-third of U.S. employees — mostly men — have regular outdoor exposure as part of their job.

Some of the strongest evidence for strategies for keeping them safe on the job comes from studies of sugarcane workers in Central America, Alahmad said. A nongovernmental organization called La Isla Network has rolled out a strategy in which workplaces incorporate mandated rest, shade, hydration and sanitation breaks.

In data collected over six years, La Isla Network has shown that this strategy improves health by reducing negative outcomes such as heat-related kidney failure. Similar reductions in heat-related illnesses have been seen in California; Texas; and Guangzhou, China, when such measures have been implemented. And although these interventions have some training and supply costs, they increase productivity, the data shows, which makes them an easier sell for companies.

"The aim is to build systems that reduce risk and harm, increase productivity and provide a return on investment so that these efforts just become business as usual," Jason Glaser, CEO of La Isla Network, told Live Science.

Passive cooling

Evidence grade: Intermediate

Passive cooling reduces indoor temperatures without mechanical devices like AC. These strategies include modern technologies, such as reflective surfaces and roofs that reflect more sunlight and thus keep buildings cooler; shade structures and urban greenery; and traditional techniques, like courtyards, shades and ventilation.

"These are often low-cost material choices that can make a big difference in the safety and comfort inside a building and have a proven track record of performance [in lowering temperature]," said Kurt Shickman, senior fellow at the WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities.

These passive technologies also make AC more efficient, thus reducing costs and lowering demand for electricity on peak power days, Shickman said.

The evidence suggests cool roofs work at scale. A 2019 California modeling study predicted that state-wide adoption of this technology would halve the number of people exposed to heat wave conditions by 2050, while a 2024 study in London that modeled cool-roof deployment predicted that the technology could reduce heat-related deaths by up to 32% during heat waves.

Green spaces can also reduce heat exposure. In dense cities in Southeast Asia, the introduction of green infrastructure, such as trees lining streets and additional bodies of water, has been shown to reduce air temperatures by up to 4.7 F (2.6 C) and surface temperatures by 19.8 F (11 C).

Those interventions won't work everywhere, though, in part because strategies that reduce deaths from heat could worsen those from cold, and cold-related deaths are four times more common globally, a 2025 study found. So places that have both cold snaps and heat waves will need to think about those trade-offs before implementing such strategies.

City-wide heat warning systems

Evidence grade: Strong

Heat warning systems have been proposed to reduce heat exposure. There is evidence that some existing systems, such as New York City's, work to reduce death or hospitalization. But whether these systems are effective depends on how they're implemented.

"Effective systems do far more than issue a temperature alert" based on forecast high-heat events, Arya told Live Science ‪—‬ an idea other experts echoed. Instead, they trigger coordinated actions, such as reaching out to vulnerable populations, extending utility protections, and coordinating with healthcare systems for surges in the number of patients.

It's difficult to test such plans in controlled experiments, but researchers try by comparing a city before and after an intervention, or by finding comparable cities or regions that did or didn't implement a heat plan and assessing the plan's effectiveness. These "natural experiments" offer a comparison without having an alternative universe as a control group. Academics using such methods concluded in 2025 that heat exposure prevention plans led to a 25% reduction in deaths attributable to extreme heat across Europe.

Personalized alerts

Evidence grade: Strong

While most warning systems trigger when temperatures cross a threshold that's considered dangerous for an average person, Shickman said, "[i]n reality, people experiencing the same air temperature will have very different responses to it."

One solution could be to individualize attention. Shickman pointed to a pilot program by insurance company Emblem Health in New York, in which a trained artificial intelligence (AI) agent supported 17,000 people with personalized advice targeted to those with complex health or social issues. The intervention halved hospital admissions compared with a control group that didn't take part.

"We can go a step further and use technology to shift from generic, passive warnings to proactive ones that address individuals' needs," he explained.

Cooling centers

Evidence grade: Weak

A common strategy implemented during heat waves is the use of cooling centers — dedicated public spaces like libraries, schools, religious buildings or commercial locations where cooler air (often via air conditioning) offers respite.

Despite extensive adoption across the U.S. and internationally, there is very limited evidence that cooling centers reduce deaths or hospitalizations from heat exposure — likely because they're not visited much.

For example, a 2024 study into Virginia's cooling centers questioned the state's existing strategy because communities that had cooling centers also had higher numbers of heat-related illnesses. Surveying the field, a 2025 review from the National Bureau of Economic Research questioned "whether those who can most benefit from reduced heat exposure can or are willing to access cooling centers, and whether travel to centers can actually increase heat exposure relative to staying at home."

Wildfire smoke

Wildfire smoke is full of fine particulate matter known as PM_2.5. These particles are 30 times smaller than the diameter of an average human hair and can penetrate deep into the lungs and the bloodstream, thereby increasing the risk of ailments such as heart attacks, asthma attacks and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

PM_2.5 pollution contributes to tens of thousands of excess deaths every year in the U.S. And research suggests that wildfire smoke emissions could increase by 262% to 482% by 2055, depending on the level of carbon emissions.

Here's what has been shown to work against this threat.

Commercial air filtration

Evidence grade: Intermediate

Data repeatedly shows that air filtration — whether through commercial HVAC systems or even a fan with a filter taped to it — reduces indoor PM_2.5 exposure.

"For wildfire smoke, an important adaptation is cleaner indoor air, as simple as that may sound," Leonard said.

Staying indoors protects individuals from the worst PM_2.5 exposure. But a 2021 California study that used 1,400 air quality sensors showed that on days with nearby wildfires, smoke found its way into households, tripling PM_2.5 compared with days without fires.

Putting newer-grade filters (MERV 16 or higher) on commercial systems, however, can reduce PM_2.5 indoors by 81%, studies found. Similarly, portable air filters have been shown to reduce PM2.5 exposure in Montana offices, Seattle homes and Singapore apartments.

However, what's still unclear is the extent to which air filtration will reduce deaths or hospitalizations related to wildfire smoke. This is because we don't know whether interventions that make air cleaner in perfect conditions scale up; people may not replace their air filters, or they may use the portable ones only some of the time, for example.

Modeling of some air filtration measures, however, suggests that they could prevent 11% to 63% of the hospital admissions and 7% to 39% of wildfire-linked deaths.

Masks for outdoor smoke exposure

Evidence grade: Intermediate

Many people, including those who work in construction and other outdoor jobs, must venture outside during smoky days, and they need information and tools to protect themselves, said Gillian Capper, program manager at the American Public Health Association's Center for Climate, Health and Equity.

For example, these measures include "distributing N95 respirators and requiring smoke protection plans for outdoor workers," she said.

Modeling studies show that N95 respirators can reduce exposure to wildfire smoke by 90%, and a modeling exercise that used data from 2012 wildfires in Washington state showed that these masks decrease smoke-linked hospitalizations by up to 30%, compared with a group that did not use masks.

Land management

Evidence grade: Intermediate

The evidence to support a reduction in wildfires through land management is mixed. The idea is that by thinning forests, harvesting trees, clearing underbrush and doing prescribed burns to prevent unplanned conflagrations, we can reduce the risk of massive, uncontrolled wildfires.

"Reducing fuels today may help avoid larger, more severe fires and associated smoke impacts in the future," Micah Hahn, an associate professor of environmental health at the University of Alaska Anchorage, told Live Science. "But relatively little research has directly measured those downstream health benefits."

A 2022 modeling exercise led by U.S. Forest Service scientists compared four forest management scenarios ‪—‬ including actions such as forest thinning and prescribed burning — in the Lake Tahoe basin over the next century. It found that these measures reduced PM_2.5 particle levels as well as smoke-related illness and death, compared with fire suppression on its own. It also modeled the health impacts for one year (2039) and found reduced health costs tied to such management.

But the benefits plateaued with more land burns. Research from the southeastern U.S. shows that management can become a large source of PM_2.5.

Still, prescribed burns have an advantage over a spontaneously erupting wildfire, experts said. "With prescribed burning, one distinct difference is the ability to plan for smoke," Heidi Huber-Stearns, director of the Center for Wildfire Smoke Research and Practice at the University of Oregon, told Live Science, and to "know when and where it will likely affect communities as compared to the unpredictability of wildfires."

Smoke alerts

In theory, fire alerts, which use high-resolution air-quality data, could reduce smoke exposure, Laura Kate Bender, vice president of nationwide advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association, told Live Science. Alerts would be paired with tailored guidance to notify people of dangerous smoke levels and to tell them when to take action.

Because these alerts are a fairly new idea, however, there's little data showing that such programs would reduce smoke exposure or related hospitalizations and deaths. That said, there’s evidence from other fields: a 2012 World Bank modeling exercise calculated that weather data and early warnings saved nearly 800 lives per year in Europe, and could save a further 23,000 in the Global South if systems were upgraded.

"The hurricane warnings are good examples to follow, as people do act on these early warnings", Kai Chen, faculty director at the Yale Center on Climate Change and Health, told Live Science.

Ultimately, the researchers we spoke with agreed that we need more data, which requires funding for further studies into which interventions are effective and can be scaled.

"We've put a lot of effort into understanding the impacts of climate change and related exposures," Alahmad said. "But there comes a point where we need to move from studying the impacts to looking at interventions and solutions and see what actually works out there."

How we evaluated studies

We categorized evidence as strong, intermediate, or weak. Here's the criteria we used to assess them.

Strong: Data shows a reduction in disease, hospitalization or death at a population level. Data comes from either randomized trials or quasi-experimental protocols. Sample sizes are robust enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.

Intermediate: Data shows an improvement in an intermediate proxy measure, such as temperature or particulate matter concentrations, which has been tied to negative health outcomes, and/or data relies on modeling to show improved health outcomes at the population-level.

Weak: Limited data exists, or the data that does exist does not show a strong protective effect.

Burning up — How can we adapt to a warming world?

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of rising temperatures, extreme weather and environmental loss. But there's another consequence that can be harder to see: The impact on our mental health.

In this exclusive video, we explore how heat exposure influences mental state, drawing on research by Kim Meidenbauer, a neuroscientist at Washington State University who studies the effect of heat on emotion and behavior.

Editor's Note: This text was updated at 12:30 p.m. EDT to correct the spelling of Kim Meidenbauer's name.

Burning up: How can we adapt to a warming world?

As the planet warms, our environment will be transformed, but so will our bodies. This video is part of a series where we investigate the health impacts of climate change, focusing on heat, air quality, food and infection risk. We also evaluate the promising solutions that could help us adapt to our warmer future.

To the untrained eye, Xiaoyu Shan's lab bench looked like a home gardening experiment gone bad: dishes filled with dirt — some that looked like mud pies and others that were bone-dry — and not a plant to be seen.

But those dishes held a warning. The dirt that Shan, a postdoctoral research associate in biology and biological engineering at Caltech, was studying contained soil microbes. And those soil microbes were exhibiting a concerning propensity: In dried-out soil, they were evolving to become more antibiotic resistant.

The study describing those findings, published in March, systematically showed that drought conditions could fuel the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Most of this resistance is driven by humans' misuse of antibiotics, which spurs bacteria to evolve genes that help them ward off the drugs. But the Caltech study raised a new worry: As many places face increased drought conditions, climate change itself could act as a selective pressure that could supercharge the evolution of these drug-resistant superbugs.

"We can expect to have more resistant bacteria being selected for in certain places around the globe," said Dianne Newman, a Caltech microbiologist and co-author of the study.

Increased antibiotic resistance is just one way that climate change is likely to put new populations at risk of multiple types of infections.

And this increased disease burden will coincide with climate change scrambling supply chains, eroding nutrition and stressing our health in other ways.

"No individual metric really does justice to the overall risk and health and well-being of these multiple stressors being exacerbated all at once and compounding each other," said Marina Romanello, a principal research fellow at the Institute of Global Health at University College London.

Warm-weather disease

In the small mountain town of Bailey, Colorado, which lies at an elevation of 7,740 feet (2,360 meters), May often brings snowstorms that can blanket the ground in white even as the sun starts to bake the plains at lower elevations. But on Memorial Day 2026, the forest floor was dry and ticks quested their way along blades of grass, seeking a blood meal.

A mild winter in most of the country means ticks — and the diseases they carry — are a rising concern. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that emergency department visits for tick bites were at their highest for that month since 2017. That trend isn't a one-off, according to the CDC; as temperatures rise, insects and arthropods can survive longer in the year and farther north.

As a result, vector-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease (spread by black-legged ticks in the Ixodes genus) and West Nile virus (spread by mosquitoes) will become more common in increasingly northerly locations. Already, alpha-gal syndrome, which is not an infection but is transmitted by the Lone Star tick (Amblyomma americanum) and causes an incurable allergy to red meat, is also seeing a dramatic rise as the species expands its range across the Northeast. Positive tests for antibodies to the alpha-gal molecule have increased by 100 times between 2013 and 2024.

Right now, almost half a million people are treated for Lyme disease each year, and the CDC records more than 8,000 cases of other tick-borne diseases annually across the country. It's not clear how this will change as the climate warms. One 2022 study found major increases in Lyme disease only at levels of warming of 6.3 to 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by 2100, but that much warming that fast is now considered an implausible scenario. However, the researchers saw a huge amount of uncertainty in the numbers, given the number of variables that affect whether a spreading tick population will transmit more disease, such as how often people go outside or what steps they take to avoid tick bites. Tick-borne illnesses are likely also underreported, so even the true number of illnesses transmitted each year right now is unknown.

But ticks are responsible for spreading 90% of all vector-borne diseases in the U.S., so any trends in the suite of illnesses spread by ticks are likely to affect thousands to tens of thousands of people.

An even more ubiquitous bloodsucker, the mosquito, currently spreads only a few diseases in the U.S. The most common and most serious is West Nile virus, which mosquitoes catch from feeding on infected birds. As of Sept. 8, 504 cases of West Nile virus had been reported in the U.S. in 2026, with 363 of them affecting the central nervous system. And because fewer than 1% of West Nile cases progress to the central nervous system, those numbers likely represent a dramatic underreporting of milder cases, which can cause months of fatigue in some people, in addition to acute flu-like symptoms, such as fever, headache and body aches.

Mosquito-borne illnesses like West Nile are expected to spread more quickly in warming temperatures. Heat helps mosquitoes stick around longer during the year, much like it does for ticks. It also speeds up the transmission and replication of the virus inside the mosquito, since the insects are cold-blooded and thus their metabolism is ruled by the weather.

"Except for places that are already really, really warm, we should expect that the replication rate of the virus inside the mosquito will speed up," said John Drake, director of the Center for the Ecology of Infectious Diseases at the University of Georgia. "That shortens the generation time, and that means we expect there to be more transmission."

Even though mosquitos love water, climate-related drought could ironically nearly triple the number of human West Nile cases in the U.S. over the next 30 years from around 2,000 reported cases (according to CDC data) to between 5,000 and 6,000. That's likely because in drier conditions, more mosquitoes are infected, possibly because birds, the intermediate host of the virus, either congregate more closely with mosquitoes around water sources or breed less readily in drought, meaning the fraction of birds that carry the virus is higher than in more water-abundant times.

Mosquito-borne diseases long ago eradicated from the U.S. could also resurge with warming temperatures. The southeastern United States will become more prone to malaria and dengue fever transmission under all levels of warming; summer 2026 saw more than 40 locally-acquired cases of dengue fever in Florida. Public health surveillance and disease-control measures have largely stopped those transmission chains, but the likelihood is that society will have to pour more money into beating these diseases back again in future decades. For example, there are malaria vaccines approved for children, but currently, they are recommended only in areas where the illnesses are endemic. If malaria were commonly found in the southern U.S., millions of Americans might need vaccines, including susceptible adults.

"If we were to get endemic diseases like those in the U.S. again, it could become a huge burden and it could be quite costly," Drake said.

Disaster and disease

Flooding is another factor that's exacerbating vector-borne disease under climate change. As climate change worsens, extreme weather events will, too. Because warm air can hold more moisture, many areas will see increased episodes of heavy rainfall and hurricanes will become more intense.

"Flooding creates habitat for these mosquitoes," Drake said.

Disasters also spur the spread of other diseases that are usually quite rare in the U.S., such as leptospirosis, a bacterial infection that spreads from animals to humans via animal urine. Floodwaters may be contaminated by the bodies of drowned animals; in 2022, after Hurricane Fiora hit Puerto Rico, leptospirosis cases leapt by a factor of 3.6 to over 10 cases a week.

After Hurricanes Matthew and Florence in 2016 and 2018, respectively, North Carolina saw an 11% increase in emergency department visits for gastrointestinal illnesses. Black and American Indian residents were the most affected, likely because discrimination over generations has disproportionately pushed Black Americans and Native Americans to less desirable, more flood-prone land, the researchers found.

Cycles of precipitation, drought and subsequent dust storms can spur the spread of Valley fever, a fungal respiratory disease that causes an estimated 700 to 1,100 deaths per year, mostly in the U.S. Southwest. Valley fever is already on the rise, with cases in Arizona, one of the hotspots for the disease, doubling from about 64 cases per 100,000 people in 2005 to 145 cases per 100,000 people in 2022. As the West warms and dries, Valley fever is likely to spread from its stronghold in the Southwest and become endemic in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota, putting millions more people at risk.

The infectious disease risk from natural disasters tends to stack on top of other health problems stemming from these catastrophes. Flooded buildings can harbor mold that can worsen allergies, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. When major storms cause power loss, people turn to generators for electricity, which release pollutants linked to asthma. Though it's often hard to track the effects of these disasters, one study found that flooded regions after Tropical Storm Imelda in Texas in 2019 saw 10% more emergency department visits for asthma than nonflooded regions did.

Moreover, the threat to life and livelihood from these disasters can cause mental health conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, Romanello said. The problems compound on each other, she said; already, she has heard reports from Africa about malaria outbreaks, fed by warming, and health workers struggling to reach the affected regions because flooding, also exacerbated by warming, has washed out roads.

"What is the most concerning aspect is that all of that is happening together, so we're seeing all of this risk being exacerbated at once," she said.

Antibiotic resistance on the rise

As Newman and Shan's work shows, as spots around the U.S. face new infection risks, existing treatments may become less effective. Their work showed that drought concentrated the natural antibiotics that bacteria make in the soil, making it harder for bacteria susceptible to the compounds to survive. As a result, the microbes with genes for antibiotic resistance did better. The problem for human health is that bacteria are very good at gene swapping, so these soil microbes can easily pass their antibiotic resistance superpowers to bacteria that infect people, their research showed.

"Gardening, breathing dust ‪—‬ that's how it happens," Newman said of human and soil bacteria coming into contact. "We are constantly encountering bacteria in our environment."

The researchers found an association between drought and antibiotic resistance reported by hospitals.

They aren't the only ones. A recent study on Salmonella, a bacterium that causes about 1.35 million cases of food poisoning each year in the U.S. alone, found that temperature and rainfall promote antibiotic resistance in this microbe. "Globally, climate change was linked to about a 10% increase in Salmonella resistance gene abundance," said study first author Zhen-Chao Zhou, an ecology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. Other microbes show similar effects.

Meanwhile, warmer conditions help bacteria grow faster, adapt to stress and swap resistance genes, Zhou said, while drought concentrates them in limited water sources where they mingle freely. Climate-change-induced flooding can then, in theory, spread the resistant genes far and wide.

Combating the compounding risks requires both public health and climate mitigation approaches, experts say. Not only does the world need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but people also need to use antibiotics more carefully, Zhou said; improve sanitation practices, such as sewage management, around the world so that antibiotic-resistant strains don't spread as easily; strengthen food safety; and expand disease surveillance. The public also needs to understand that climate change is a health issue, Romanello said.

"When we talk about tackling greenhouse gas emissions," she said, "what we're talking about is a sustainable livable future with healthy economies."

Burning up — How can we adapt to a warming world?

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

With only a couple of months to go before the harvest season for winter wheat in Colorado, the crop faced a whiplash: After a warm, dry winter, a cold snap plunged the plants into freezing weather for 12 hours, and temperatures soared to nearly 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32.2 degrees Celsius) two days later. When the final harvest numbers were tallied in July, 73% of the crops were in poor or very poor condition. According to early estimates by Colorado Wheat, 2026's winter wheat crop was the smallest in the state since 1965.

Pick a crop, any crop, and you'll hear a similar story: Extreme weather and climate change are rocking the food supply. The warming climate makes food less nutritious, threatens crop survival, and triggers tipping points that would upend farming as we know it.

The impacts will be felt most intensely in less-developed regions of the world, where many people can't afford imported food and climate-related famines and nutritional scarcity are already happening.

But the U.S. is facing big changes to its food systems too, and no one is immune. Humans have overcome looming agricultural disasters before, but experts say the challenge should not be underestimated.

"There are real food security and nutrition concerns," said Andrew Hultgren, an environmental economist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, "especially under these high-warming futures."

Food is becoming less nutritious

As the planet warms, food crops are expected to become less nutritious. That's because, due to plant biology that's not yet fully understood, crops grown under higher levels of carbon dioxide are deficient in zinc, protein, magnesium, iron and other micronutrients. Crops are already less nutritious than they were in the 1950s, but this is partly due to breeding decisions that prioritize yield over nutrition. The carbon dioxide deficiencies will exacerbate this nutrition decline.

The global monthly average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now over 420 parts per million (ppm), well over the preindustrial average of 280 ppm. By the end of the century, those levels will increase to at least 550 ppm in all but the most optimistic scenarios.

That will mean an additional 175 million people will be zinc deficient and an additional 122 million people will be protein deficient by 2050, a 2018 study found. Zinc deficiency has consequences for immune and skin health and may lead to poor growth in childhood; protein deficiency can also cause stunted growth as well as fatigue, muscle weakness and stress fractures. Those figures account only for the effects of carbon dioxide. A cascade of climate shifts and extreme weather may also affect the number of nutrients (and calories) available to the world.

The threats are myriad: Rising sea levels may inundate farmland and lead to saltier soil in coastal regions where, for example, rice farming is common. Soil salinity can make it impossible to grow crops in some regions. Droughts, heat waves, storms or temperature swings like those seen in Colorado this year might take out certain crops in particular places, leading to year-by-year price spikes or shortages. In the U.S., the results might look a lot like the recent egg shortages triggered by bird flu; temporarily empty shelves, price spikes, or even restrictions on the amount a customer can purchase in a visit for an affected food.

Climate shifts that harm pollinators and fuel the spread and introduction of plant pathogens such as harmful fungi will also likely reduce crop yields.

Areas that depend on the ocean for food are also facing steep challenges, due to both ocean acidification and the degradation of coral reef ecosystems, which are sources of food for many coastal communities and form much of the base of food chains for the larger fish people eat.

Hotter weather also affects food safety, said Christopher Golden, a professor of nutrition and public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

"Increasing sea temperature and increasing sedimentation within seas could lead to harmful algal blooms or increasing food poisoning events from temperature-related food spoilage," Golden said. Algal blooms can contaminate shellfish like oysters or scallops with neurotoxins that can sicken and kill people who eat them. Food spoilage is a concern in regions such as Madagascar, where catches are brought ashore and readied for consumption in the open air.

Meanwhile, fish may move poleward to avoid the hottest sea temperatures, leaving the most vulnerable regions ‪—‬ such as Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, Africa, Central America and the Pacific ‪—‬ with fewer fish in their waters. How bad this looks depends on the extent of the climate swings, with research suggesting that without any mitigation, fishers could see their catches decline by 58% to 92% off small islands in the Pacific and by 70% to 86% in Southeast Asia. This would drive food insecurity and malnutrition in those regions. The U.S. will likely face impacts too, as most of its seafood is imported from subtropical or tropical waters elsewhere.

There may be shifts in trade networks that lessen the blow for U.S. consumers, Golden said, but it's hard to predict. Some possibilities include "price shifts or trade shifts that lead to changing dietary patterns or more shelf-stable and heavily processed items that we know aren't good for your health," he said. In other words, less fresh-caught snapper and more potted meats.

Changing foods on the table

Individual producers are adapting, sometimes in ways that may not be immediately obvious to consumers. "Climate change is bad in that it's a slow-moving wave," said Elizabeth Wolkovich, a professor of forestry at the University of British Columbia. "You don't really notice that it's shifting underneath you and that the apple you eat isn't the apple your granddaughter will eat."

On that note, growers in the Pacific Northwest and U.S. Northeast will face challenges getting apples to lunch boxes around the world. Fewer cold days and more extreme-heat days will likely reduce apple yields by affecting how and when trees go dormant and bloom. Because it takes five or more years to establish fruiting trees in new regions, this could mean a reduced apple supply and higher prices.

Today's smooth arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) varieties may get harder to find and more expensive as climate change forces coffee growers out of many of the places they used to farm and droughts reduce supply. Earthier, more bitter robusta coffee beans (Coffea canephora) do better in warming temperatures, but even those beans could struggle with increasing seasonal variability caused by climate change.

Climate has already shifted wines in favor of less-acidic and higher-alcohol varieties, Wolkovich said, but it's happened slowly enough that, unless you're a connoisseur, you may not have noticed. Wine lovers can expect more changes: Wolkovich has found that the varieties of wine grapes that growers can produce will shift with climate change. Wildfires in grape-growing regions like California can also produce an unpleasant acrid and smoky flavor in wine.

And it's not just flavors that will be affected. U.S. dairy cattle breeds originated in cool and cloudy Northern Europe, and their milk output goes down as temperatures climb. Such heat stress reduced annual milk yield by an average of 1% a year between 2012 and 2016 alone, and heat-related losses are expected to balloon by 30% by 2050.

Americans have long been drinking less milk from the glass, but their demand for yogurt and cheese is rising, said Jared Hutchins, an assistant professor of agricultural and consumer economics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and first author of the study on milk yield. Those products depend heavily on the fat and protein content in milk, which is the first thing to drop when cattle are hot. "Fat and protein are what deliver the cultured dairy products that are in high demand," Hutchins told Live Science.

The story repeats itself across agricultural products, Hultgren said. "For each degree of that global temperature rise, caloric output [from crops] drops by 120 kilocalories or U.S. calories per person per day," he said, "which is about 4.5% of a person's daily recommended caloric intake."

That calculation, published by Hultgren and his colleagues in the journal Nature in 2025, already accounted for adaptations that farmers can make to reduce crop losses. Without those adaptations, the number would be over 30% higher, he said.

Reductions in available calories will translate to food shortages in vulnerable places, such as the Horn of Africa or India, said Marina Romanello, executive director of a multinational research project that tracks the impacts of climate on health at University College London. In North America, "it would feel like inflation," Hultgren said ‪—‬ yet another factor driving up grocery prices.

Worst-case scenarios

For farmers, the year-by-year uncertainty of climate change is a problem. Will this year bring drought? Will there be a sudden storm or flood that will wash away the spring crop? Should they take a risk on a new heat-resistant plant or agricultural technique?

Similar uncertainty haunts the long-term forecast. Climate tipping points can lead to sudden, irreversible changes in the system. For agriculture, one of the scariest tipping points is the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This pattern of ocean currents brings warm surface water north from the equator and circulates cold water south, warming Northern Europe and the northern parts of North America and cooling the Southern Hemisphere.

If this current were to collapse, northwestern Europe would cool dramatically, with studies suggesting that London could see temperature lows of minus 4 F (minus 20 C) ‪— ‬colder than the city's lowest temperatures on record. Precipitation would decline across Europe, leading to drought. Meanwhile, in the Amazon, the wet season could become the dry season and vice versa, said René van Westen, a climate researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands who has studied the impacts of an AMOC collapse.

On the other hand, if the AMOC doesn't collapse, London is expected to warm by 4.9 F (2.7 C) and see 15% to 18% more precipitation, depending on the season. The uncertainty in these predictions makes preparations difficult. There is still a lot of controversy over whether the AMOC will collapse and, if so, when. Should farmers plan for England to become increasingly toasty, or should they expect it to be plunged into a little ice age?

AMOC-related changes will take decades to centuries to unfold, even with a total collapse, van Westen told Live Science. But even so, they would require a total rewriting of agriculture in Europe and the northeastern U.S. "It will be very challenging to adapt to such a scenario," he said.

That doesn't mean a collapse of the world food system is inevitable. Farmers are already adapting to the early impacts of climate change by scaling back water-hungry crops in drought years and, in some places, testing new, heat-resistant varieties of crops in an attempt to stem the losses.

And humans have overcome looming disaster in agriculture before: In the 1950s and 1960s, new varieties of rice and wheat, along with the availability of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, spurred the "Green Revolution," tripling the world's yield of cereal crops while expanding farmland by only 30%. Similar innovations could limit hunger even as the world warms.

But the biggest way to mitigate these impacts is the most obvious one. While Hultgren and his colleagues found that adaptation could cut caloric losses under climate change by 30%, mitigating warming by reducing emissions today could slash them by half. Similarly, the AMOC is on a path toward weakening, van Westen said, but as long as humans slow the pace of climate change, the current can recover.

"If you are cutting your emissions," van Westen said, "you can lower your risk."

Burning up — How can we adapt to a warming world?

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

As wildfires raged through Ontario, Canada in mid-July, millions of people in the Midwest and on the East Coast found themselves under a shroud of yellow skies, darkened by smoke from the infernos. The air quality index in Grand Rapids, Michigan hit 616 on July 16, breaking the previous record for the city of 350; any number over 301 indicates hazardous, emergency conditions.

Smoke events like this are only likely to worsen in the coming decades: Wildfires are one of the most imminent impacts of climate change.

Not only do the flames themselves directly threaten lives, but the smoke can trigger heart attacks, asthma attacks and premature births, as well as worsen heart disease or lung ailments such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). And those effects can spread as insidiously as smoke travels.

A 2025 study found that the record-breaking 2023 Canadian wildfire season may have shortened the lives of 87,000 people exposed to the smoke plumes worldwide. Another 2025 study found that wildfire smoke contributed to 41,380 excess deaths per year in the U.S. between 2011 and 2020 and that the number will rise to 71,420 excess deaths by 2050 if global temperatures rise 5 to 8.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.6 degrees Celsius) by the end of the century.

In North America, the health impacts of this extra fire are likely to be significant. Wildfire season is getting longer and more intense in the West and Southwest, while regions not historically prone to wildfires will need to deal with the impacts of smoke plumes that can travel thousands of miles.

"Wildfire smoke is the fastest-growing environmental threat [to health] in the U.S.," said Marshall Burke, a professor of global environmental policy at Stanford University who was the senior author of the study predicting the grim rise in excess deaths. "It's just changing so rapidly."

Longer fire season, bigger blazes

Even a rapid drop in greenhouse gas emissions wouldn't fully mitigate the growing risk of wildfires. Because these gases persist in the atmosphere for decades, a more fire-friendly future is already locked in.

"No one foresees changes in the near future, at least, that are going to result in decreases in wildfire," said Mary M. Johnson, a principal research scientist in environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Wildfires are "predicted to increase in size, intensity and frequency."

Global data suggests that without climate change mitigation, fires will increase in all vegetation types by the end of the 21st century. Even if warming is held to 2.2 F (1.5 C) over pre-industrial temperatures ‪—‬ an increasingly challenging goal to meet ‪—‬ fires outside of tropical latitudes will become more frequent.

In the U.S., the picture is bleak. Between 1984 and 2015, the number of large wildfires in the U.S. West doubled, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The seasonality of fire is also shifting. A February 2026 study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that climate change is nudging fire season in the boreal forests of Alaska and Canada forward as winter snow vanishes earlier, leaving spring vegetation dry and ripe to burn. In the U.S. West, on the other hand, fire season is stretching later because of summer drought.

"It's about dryness," GRL study senior author Hongliang Zhang, an air quality researcher at China's Fudan University, told Live Science.

Climate change warms the atmosphere, and a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But changes in precipitation patterns can still lead to increased dryness and drought, Zhang said. With climate change weighing the scales toward more intense bouts of rainfall, a particular location could see more precipitation but still experience a simultaneous increase in dry or drought periods, he added.

Zhang and his colleagues found that under a scenario in which temperatures rise by about 7.9 F (4.4 C) by 2100 — a high-emission scenario in which we do little to curb carbon output — fire season would move forward by about a week in Canadian and Alaskan forests, with some of the northernmost regions of Canada and Alaska seeing shifts of up to 23 days. California, with its Mediterranean-like climate, would experience a peak burning shift later in the season. In the Southwest, fire season under this scenario would start a week later but end more than a month later than it does now.

How wildfire smoke is poisoning the air

All of this spells bad news for human health in the U.S. More frequent and intense fires will fuel dramatic increases in air pollution. For instance, a 2020 study suggests that particulate smoke pollution levels will double or triple in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California under unmitigated warming by the end of the century. And even though the West is the U.S. region most prone to fire, wildfire smoke pollution won't stay there. Instead, it will travel across the country, worsening air quality on the East Coast and in the Midwest, Burke and his colleagues found. Depending on the level of warming, smoke emissions will increase 262% to 482% between 2046 and 2055 compared to 2011 to 2020, the researchers found.

Climate change also brings an uptick in severe weather, including winds, Johnson told Live Science. More wind means smoke can travel many thousands of miles. For example, the smoke from the 2023 Canadian wildfires reached Europe and Asia, and that trend is likely to worsen.

"There really isn't any place in the world now where you can say, 'I'm not going to be exposed to smoke,'" she said.

When wildlands burn, they produce PM2.5, a fine particulate matter that is small enough to slip into the bloodstream. Epidemiological studies have linked exposure to PM2.5 to a range of health issues, including dementia, kidney disease and lung cancer. The particles increase oxidative stress on cells in lab dishes, induce cell death, and cause DNA damage that can lead to cancerous mutations, among other impacts.

The damage is evident during big fires. For instance, exposure to wildfire smoke raises the risk of heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular emergencies, according to a study of California emergency department visits during the 2015 wildfire season. Cumulative exposure over time, however, is how wildfire smoke causes the most deaths. Between 2006 and 2020, PM2.5 from wildfire smoke exposure was responsible for an average of 24,100 deaths per year in the United States, a study published in the journal Science Advances in February found. Smoke exposure worsened the death rate for every health condition studied, with neurological disease deaths rising most significantly.

Wildfire smoke may also fuel premature births. Just a week of wildfire smoke exposure raised the risk of preterm birth by 3.4%, a 2022 study found — and in a world where smoke exposure could span weeks, that could translate to a significant uptick in the rate of premature birth. Other studies tell a similar story: a 2024 study found risk of premature birth rises with every incremental increase in exposure to PM2.5 from wildfires during pregnancy. And a 2025 study found that preterm birth risk increased in the U.S. West with smoke exposure, regardless of whether that exposure was measured by high-smoke days, exposure to 4-day waves of smoke, or by the concentration of particulate matter in the air.

Wildfire smoke may also affect cognition: A 2022 study found that cumulative exposure to wildfire smoke over the school year was linked to slightly lower test scores for elementary and middle schoolers. And research using data from cognitive brain-training apps has also shown that performance on a cognitive task declines on high smoke days in adults. Over the long term, PM2.5 exposure from wildfires is linked to dementia risk.

Toxic cocktail

Researchers are still working to understand why wildfire smoke is so dangerous to the body. Smoke can contain a toxic stew of ingredients, especially when homes and buildings burn. Air testing after the 2025 Palisades fire in Los Angeles found high levels of silver and chromium-6 nanoparticles, the latter of which are carcinogenic.

Johnson and her team have found that smoke exposure leads to epigenetic changes associated with the immune system.‪‬ In other words, the person's DNA doesn't change, but the way it's translated into building proteins and cells in the immune system shifts. And epigenetic shifts can be passed along to the next generation. One shift is a decline in regulatory T cells, immune cells that help the body tolerate itself and harmless allergens. The immune changes probably play a role in why wildfire smoke exacerbates chronic diseases, Johnson said.

More smoke days can also affect health indirectly, by keeping people from going outdoors. In California, the heaviest smoke days actually have fewer emergency department visits overall, Burke said. On the smokiest days, when the air is noticeably hazy and may even smell like a campfire, emergency department visits for asthma-related reasons rise, but visits related to injuries or car accidents decline even more, probably because everyone is staying home. That may sound like a net benefit, but if forced quarantines happen repeatedly, they can worsen physical and mental health over time, making people more sedentary or less able to socialize.

"It's keeping people from doing things they would otherwise love to do," Burke said.

On the flip side, emergency department visits rise on days when the Air Quality Index indicates a moderate risk or a risk to sensitive groups.On these days, the air may not seem noticeably bad, and people may go out without realizing the amount of pollution they are inhaling until they start to feel ill.

"That's really consistent with this broader air pollution literature that, especially recently, has shown there is no safe exposure level to air pollution," Burke said.

With an increasingly wildfire-friendly climate in its future, Americans will be less healthy. There are ways to reduce the impact, however. Burke and his team have found that controlled burns put off less pollution than wildfires, while reducing the fuel load that turns wildland fires into smoke-churning infernos. An investment in managing fuels could ultimately be an investment in improving the country's health.

"It is within our power to correct that problem," Burke said.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Burning up — How can we adapt to a warming world?

In 2010, researchers at Purdue University and the University of New South Wales began an investigation into a macabre question: What's the upper temperature limit at which humans can survive? The answer, according to their calculations, was 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius) at 100% humidity — a "wet bulb" temperature that sets an absolute "unsurvivable" threshold for the human body.

Beyond this temperature, a cascade of irreversible physiological processes begins, sending organs into shock, causing blood to clot and ending in inevitable death.

As the climate warms and heat waves multiply, more places across the globe are creeping towards this threshold, with climate models projecting the first 35 C wet bulb temperatures by the middle of the century.

But conditions don't have to be this hot or humid to be unlivable in a practical sense for wide swaths of the population. The threshold is lower for those who are older, for women, and those with certain medical conditions. Any kind of physical activity also raises the risk of heat stress.

In some parts of Asia, South America and Australia, the hottest days are already "unlivable," meaning a healthy adult sitting in the shade in a slight breeze could be at risk from heat illness, a recent study found.

In North America, the hottest days in parts of the Southwest and Southeast pose that same risk, the study found. And more heat is coming: Under projected warming, the country will see tens of thousands more heat-related deaths by 2100.

Nearly 20,000 people could die from extreme heat each year by the middle of the century in the United States. The U.S. and Mexico could see an additional 9,000 suicides each year.

Heat can kill directly, via heat stroke, but it can also worsen underlying cardiovascular health, turning chronic, manageable heart conditions deadly. Heat waves often occur hand in hand with droughts or other extreme weather and may lead to food and water price hikes or shortages, said Marina Romanello, a senior research fellow at the University College London Institute for Global Health who tracks how the climate affects health. In that sense, climate change acts as a stress multiplier.

And heat could erode health in other, subtler ways, making nights more sleepless and our cognition a bit cloudier.

"No individual metric really does justice to the overall risk to health and well-being of these multiple stressors being exacerbated all at once and compounding each other," she told Live Science.

Heat wave deaths

Heat kills most immediately through heat stroke, which occurs when the core body temperature soars over 104 F (40 C) and doesn't cool down. Dangerous heat waves — and resulting deaths — have already increased over the past several decades. In 2023, heat was described as the main cause or a major underlying cause of death on 2,325 U.S. death certificates, an increase from 1,069 in 1999, research shows. When adjusted for age of the population, that represented a 63% rise in heat-related deaths.

But scientists think heat already contributes to many more deaths than that, because heat isn't always listed as a contributor to death on official records, even if it may have played a role in exacerbating an underlying health condition.

Heat is particularly hard on people with cardiovascular issues, with the risk of a heart attack more than doubling on extreme heat days. The risk of stroke, too, nearly doubles on the hottest days. Some early evidence hints that heat's impact on the immune system may play a role in these cardiac cases. Deaths related to extreme heat days for all reasons are projected to more than double by the mid-century in the U.S., leading to up to nearly 20,000 deaths if temperatures warm 8.1 degrees F (4.5 degrees C).

And rates of hyponatremia, or low sodium levels — which can cause seizures and coma — are also projected to increase as climate change worsens.

Most at risk are older adults, kids and teens, and people who work outside. The heart pumps less efficiently as people age, so older people struggle to pump blood to the skin to cool down. Children produce more heat than adults, given differing fat makeup and a lower skin surface area, and sweat less, making them more prone to developing heat stroke. Outdoor workers often have to exert themselves on hot days and may struggle to hydrate enough to compensate for extreme heat.

People with certain medical conditions are also at high risk. Diabetes can impair sweating and the dilation of the blood vessels that helps cool the body in hot temperatures, making people with diabetes more susceptible to heat stroke. Some medications, including diuretics often taken by people with heart disease, beta blockers for people with heart conditions, and selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) taken for mood disorders, also increase the risk of heat-related illness because their side effects make it harder for the body to cool itself.

Mental illness itself is also a risk factor. Higher temperatures have been linked to an increase in suicides, with 0.7% more instances of suicides in the U.S. per for every 1.8 F (1 degree C) increase in monthly average temperature. Were temperatures to rise more than 5 degrees C (9 degrees F), that rise could translate to between 9,000 and 40,000 additional suicides in the U.S. and Mexico by 2050, the researchers wrote ‪—‬ similar to the increase in the suicide rate expected in a serious economic recession. (Fortunately, that temperature rise is now considered unlikely due to the world moving away from coal as an energy source.)

It's not clear exactly why hotter days fuel more suicide, but one possibility is that feeling hot and uncomfortable can increase the impulsivity that may underlie the behavior.

And impulsivity rises in people who struggle to stay comfortably cool in their homes, Kim Meidenbauer, a neuroscientist at Washington State University who studies the effect of heat on emotion and behavior, has found.

The effects may be hardest on those who have preexisting mental health conditions, ranging from schizophrenia to anxiety: Mental-health-related emergency department visits have been shown to rise with the temperature.

Perhaps the most universal way heat may compromise health in the U.S. is through sleep. Heat reduces both sleep quality and sleep quantity. For every degree-Celsius increase in nighttime temperature, there is a loss of 3 good nights of sleep per month per 100 people, according to one large-scale sleep-tracking study.

Those sleep disruptions may be the major reason heat has a corrosive effect on mood and mental health, even for those without existing mental health conditions, Meidenbauer noted.

"We see worsened emotional state," she told Live Science. "We see increases in impulsivity." And underslept people struggle to stay on an even keel, perhaps explaining both E.R. visits and a heightened risk of suicide.

"Emotion regulation is a lot harder if you've had poor sleep quality," Meidenbauer told Live Science.

Daily health in a hotter world

Heat affects the mind in other ways, too. People have trouble thinking clearly once temperatures reach 89.6 F (32 C), a study that administered math and verbal reasoning tests to 50,000 people in China found.

The number of days in the U.S. with heat indices over 100 F (37.8 C) is expected to double as soon as a decade from now, while the number of days with heat indices over 105 F (40 C) is expected to triple. The heat index is a measure of what the temperature feels when taking into account air temperature and relative humidity. The more humid the air, the harder it is for the body to cool off by sweating.

Nearly nine in 10 U.S. households have air conditioning, but that doesn't mean Americans are immune to heat waves. The 2024 study in China found that even short-term exposure to extreme heat — on the order of an hour in a couple of days — can cause small declines in math and verbal test scores, indicating some degree of mental sluggishness in hot weather.

Hotter days may drive people indoors, potentially worsening physical and mental health. Exercising outdoors may provide a mental health boost above and beyond exercising indoors. The data is limited by research designs that don't always follow rigorous methods, but losing outdoor exercise opportunities could mean a slide in physical fitness even if people switch to indoor workouts. For example, cancer survivors randomly assigned to indoor and outdoor exercise worked harder when exercising outside, according to one 2020 study. Likewise, teen boys with obesity prescribed playful exercise outside lost more weight and saw greater increases in a molecule that regulates appetite and wakefulness than those who were assigned to use a treadmill indoors, a 2019 study found. People also reported more satisfaction with outdoor exercise versus indoor exercise, which might influence their willingness to keep working out.

Hot days could also curtail kids' sports, which are often played outdoors. In Japan, summer outdoor youth sports in much of the country might need to be restricted for one to four months a year, even under lower-warming scenarios; similar issues could crop up in much of the U.S., which sits at approximately the same latitude as Japan.

Overall, studies find a U-shaped relationship between obesity and temperature, with higher body mass index (BMI) in the coldest and hottest places. One study in Australia found that regular exposure to temperatures above 86 degrees F (30 degrees C) was associated with increases in BMI and obesity.

Adapting to extreme heat

People do adapt to warmer temperatures over weeks or months through physiological changes, as their sweat glands become more efficient and their water retention increases. The cognition study conducted in China found that people who lived in climates that were warmer on average were more resistant to declining test scores in the face of warmer temperatures, perhaps indicating that these physiological changes have practical impacts.

However, extreme heat — and short-term spikes — outpace the human body's ability to adjust, as the increases in heat-related deaths already measured between 1999 and 2023 attest. Likewise, kids are already suffering, especially those in the South where temperatures are highest. A study of two major hospitals in Texas found a 170% increase in pediatric emergency department visits for heat-releated illness between 2012 and 2023.

What works to reduce the impacts of extreme heat is an open question, said Marshall Burke, a professor of global environmental policy at Stanford University. Cities often open cooling centers during heat waves, which may save lives, but whether they do enough hasn't been well studied, he told Live Science.

To try to answer that question, Burke and his colleagues have put together a website, the Environmental Hazard Adaptation Atlas, to pull together data on temperature, heat-related illness and death, and what adaptations might help.

"We need good case studies of what things have worked," he said. "We need good systematic evidence."

Burning up — How can we adapt to a warming world?