FirstAlerts
Severe Weather

National Weather Service Issues Extreme Heat Warning for Parts of Oklahoma and Arkansas

The developing weather situation includes expected heat index values between 110 and 115 on August 16, 2026.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 3:20 p.m. ET
Developing

Hazard products are revised and cancelled as conditions change. Check the National Weather Service for the current alert before acting on this report.

An has been issued for a developing weather situation across zones in Oklahoma and Arkansas on August 16, 2026. According to official records from the , the starts at noon CDT and expires at 8 PM CDT on Sunday.\n\nOfficial records show heat index values from 110 to 115 are expected on both Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon, with overnight lows in the upper 70s to lower 80s expected Saturday night. The covers Southern Crawford and North and Central Sebastian Counties in Arkansas, alongside Central and Southern Sequoyah, Okfuskee, Haskell, McIntosh, Northern Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties in Oklahoma. Cities in the area include Stigler, Spiro, Panama, Sallisaw, Fort Smith, Okemah, Pocola, Arkoma, Checotah, Van Buren, and McAlester.\n\nAccording to the National Weather Service, heat-related illnesses increase significantly during extreme heat and high humidity events, especially for people not acclimated to the conditions or those performing strenuous activities. Official advice recommends drinking plenty of fluids, staying in an air-conditioned room, staying out of the sun, checking up on relatives and neighbors, wearing lightweight and loose fitting clothing, limiting strenuous activities to early morning or evening, and taking action when symptoms of heat exhaustion or heat stroke appear.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 19:20current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.