Blizzard Warning Issued for Los Angeles and Ventura County Mountains

The National Weather Service's Los Angeles office issued a blizzard warning running from February 24 to February 25, with sources giving sharply different snow and wind forecasts.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Feb 22, 2023, 2:10 p.m. ETWritten Aug 8, 2026, 8:58 p.m. ET

issued a covering Los Angeles County, Ventura County, the San Gabriel Mountains and parts of Southern California including the Los Angeles region, according to reporting by Gizmodo and CNN. The alert was at level. Gizmodo reported the began on February 24; both outlets reported it ran through February 25. The situation is developing. Accounts of the expected snow and wind differ. Gizmodo reported that Southern California's mountain ranges were expected to be pummeled by heavy snow and high winds, with the highest elevations above 6,000 feet forecast to receive up to 7 feet of snow and lower elevations up to 3 feet. CNN reported that The two outlets also described the expected impacts differently. CNN reported that heavy snow and strong winds can ultimately result in near zero visibility for those in the area, even when snow stops falling, because high winds can blow flakes off the ground, and that a threat of power outages persists. Gizmodo described extremely dangerous mountain conditions and said mountain travel would be a mess. CNN reported that

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 19 Aug 2026, 00:58current
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.