I can understand why that might be the intuitive deduction. But the logical deduction is had by considering that the worst case heating has to happen if none of the energy of the sun is put to use at all, if neither nature nor we used it.
Natural life has to have a cooling effect, because it is converting energy to things other than heat, creating things eventually like oil. The energy converted by solar panels, used to create anything at all, can be no different. Hydrogen is a good example, giving us instant fuel, but it doesn't matter, just charging someone's car has to have a cooling effect also, however small.
So the presence of solar panels collecting any energy at all, converting it to things other than just heat, has to have a net negative effect on temperature.
Notice this first temperature impulse is amplified by other cascading effects. If the temperature impulse is negative, creative, ading energy put to use on Earth like nature does, then there are further positive feedback effects, like if we use some solar power to create temperate air conditioned environments, we can create further photoynthetic life which would not survive if we did not create the air conditioned environment for it to initially live in, therfore multiplying the creative use of energy.
We would never dream of doing that by fossil fueled aircon, it would seem a frightful waste of energy, and it would be, in a fossil fueled environment, the net temperature impulse would be even more heavily positive, the additional load of aircon would heavily outweigh any positive temperature impulse of the life it might be used to nurture.
CO2 generation, for example comes from things with a destructive, initially positive temperature impulse. We have to see this is a multiplier of mathematically negative energy use effects, that is energy taken out of use. If we start with negative energy use then the multipliers can only be negative.
See how it works now?
This is why we have to start assigning mathematical polarity to energy, when it is taken out of being put to use on Earth as anything other than heat, becoming heat as a result, it is something extracted from life, where life is energy put to use as things other than heat.
Obviously if we add it in, converting it to things other than heat, then we are adding to life, so this has to be assigned positive use of energy. Notice the latter adds to economic capital of humanity also, with generation of hydrogen from solar adding to existing fuel stocks for example. If that hydrogen is converted further to Solein, then this adds to human food stocks, consumption of which allows us to remove our human load from natural food stocks, allowing the latter to recover. See another positive multiplier?
Start with positive energy use and all the multipliers are positive.
Start with negative energy use and all the multipliers are negative.
It all stacks up mathematically, and is easily modeled.
It's the difference between actually creating, and just pretending we are creating.
We can truly create, but not at profit, we have to let the profit go, to have real creation, because at its heart profit is an energy con, where the planet is conned out of energy put to positive use, by every profitable transaction.
I know some folk might think that sounds religious, but that does not change that this is hard scientific logic, the real truth of our destructive existence fueled by energy stolen from all life on Earth, even our own.