You are repeating what I said.
No I'm not. You said "It is physically impossible for efficiently operating solar panels to absorb 95% of the incoming sunlight."
That is incorrect. I'm trying to help you see the logic.
In a control volume analysis at steady state, you sum the energy inputs and output and the totals must match. 100% light in, 5% out as reflection, 15% out as electricity, 80% out as heat. 95% absorption splits into 15% and 80%.
The bare desert sand is probably 30-50% reflection and 50-70% absorption. The 50-70% absorbed light also leaves as heat.
So the article is not wrong on that point. But whether the difference between 80% sunlight being converted to heat and 50-79% is enough to affect the weather seems questionable to me.
That is incorrect. I'm trying to help you see the logic.
In a control volume analysis at steady state, you sum the energy inputs and output and the totals must match. 100% light in, 5% out as reflection, 15% out as electricity, 80% out as heat. 95% absorption splits into 15% and 80%.
The bare desert sand is probably 30-50% reflection and 50-70% absorption. The 50-70% absorbed light also leaves as heat.
So the article is not wrong on that point. But whether the difference between 80% sunlight being converted to heat and 50-79% is enough to affect the weather seems questionable to me.