The study used a new method of measuring the ocean's absorption of heat, and concluded - through incorrect math - that 60% more heat had been absorbed than previously thought. 

The report was covered or referenced by MSM outlets worldwide, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others. 

Shortly after the article was published, however, independent UK-based researcher Nicholas Lewis published a comprehensive blog post, claiming he had found a "major problem" with the research. 

"So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty," Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, "as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate."

Lewis added that he tends "to read a large number of papers, and, having a mathematics as well as a physics background, I tend to look at them quite carefully, and see if they make sense. And where they don't make sense — with this one, it's fairly obvious it didn't make sense — I look into them more deeply."

Lewis has argued in past studies and commentaries that climate scientists are predicting too much warming because of their reliance on computer simulations, and that current data from the planet itself suggests global warming will be less severe than feared. -Washington Post