I am not physicist, but an Engineer. I was never very clear on the rigid definitions of closed and open systems but have encountered it in some discussions. There are folk believing the planet is ending because of that faulty historical definition of open and closed systems, they argue that the second law applies to the system of Earth. But that would imply creation doesn't happen. Of course we see creation all the time, from the energy of the sun, energy is constantly converted to physical things by nature, and this has to have a cooling effect.
This is the core of the conclusion that we could replace fossil fuels by human creation of hydrogen by electrolysis from sunlight on a domestic and community basis, and that would have the opposite effect on temperature than happens by extracting energy from the planet (which was actually destruction, the opposite of creation)
Replacement of fossil fuels is perfectly feasible, and ultimately sustainable even scaleable way beyond what we could ever achieve by fossil fuels, the more of it we could do, the more benelfit we would see done to the planet. But was often argued against by folk wielding the faulty definition of thermodynamically closed and open systems, something like you describe.
So it's all your fault... joking of course.
Thanks for the admission and clarification, I think it fits better with the Earth / sun creation destruction scenario, and now can point folk trying to make the faulty argument to your explanation here.