Could we use solar energy with endothermic reactions to fight global warming? Im in holidays in Malaysia and it is god damn hot. You cannot leave your hotel/car and go out. All this because of the sun.
I we were to capture all the heat (solar panels, ...) would this help make the Earth cooler / fight global warming ?
Edit : see one of my comments, I mean use the heat to conduct some endothermic reactions (e.g solar panel -> electricity -> electrolyte)
 A: There are several interacting effects.
And for global warming, we need to look at the whole earth.
First effect: putting the panels up may change the albedo - the reflectivity - of the surface. That will increase the amount of energy absorbed by the earth, rather than reflected into space. The effect would be a miniscule increase in heating.
Second effect: connecting the panels to the energy system means that renewable energy will be used, rather than fossil fuels being burnt. Which means that there will be less additional heat in the earth that would have come about from the burning of the fossil fuels. The effect would be a miniscule decrease in heating, of a very similar size to the first effect, but in the opposite direction.
Third effect: because less fossil fuels are burnt, less CO2 and methane would be released into the atmosphere. The effect would be a decrease in the heating of the Earth.
So, solar panels mitigate the increase in global warming, but the direct heat effects pretty much cancel each other out, and are dwarfed by the greenhouse-gas forcing effect.
A: Solar panels are dark (they have to absorb light) and they do decrease the Earth's albedo, i.e. they make the planet locally darker. This means that locally they will cause slight additional heating. Part of the energy that a panel absorbs gets converted into electrical energy, which can be transferred off-site, i.e. removal of energy actually cools the panel. Currently used panels have peak a efficiency of about $20\%$, i.e. they will not be able to remove more than $20\%$ of the absorbed energy from their location, however, in the near future (i.e. within something like 20-30 years) we will have panels with $40\%$ or even higher efficiency, which means that large amounts of the absorbed energy can be transported off-site. Even more importantly, at night these panels can act as very efficient infra-red emitters and change the local air circulation patterns, which means that overall we may actually be able to get slight local cooling at and near large solar facilities. 
None of this should be mistaken for global effects, though. The global problem is that for every kWh of energy that we are creating trough burning of fossil fuels, we are causing a $\mathrm{CO_2}$ loading of the atmosphere that creates a lasting multiple heating effect. The only way to reverse global warming is by undoing this heating. The most obvious way for that is by removing the $\mathrm{CO_2}$ from the atmosphere, again, which requires energy not created by fossil fuel burning. Since there is such a large multiplier on the primary cause of global warming, the same multiplier applies to no-carbon sources of energy. The direct local impact of solar panels is therefore dwarfed by their global impact.
A: The energy budget of the earth is predominantly dependent on the balance between  radiation coming from the sun ( there exists internal energy from the magma in the earth but it is a small percentage of the energy budget) and radiated energy from the earth back to space according to a modified black body radiation.
There is a secondary energy budget that can be calculated, between the atmosphere and the surface plus the surface radiating  to space (part of the total budget). Solar panels are on the surface of the earth.

If we were to capture all the heat (solar panels, ...) would this help make the Earth cooler / fight global warming ?

Energy is conserved. In order to get cooler temperatures on the surface  the surface energy budget should be controlled. Solar panels just move about 20% of the radiation energy falling on the surface to different parts on the surface. Only if the captured energy were radiated off the earth, for example by lasers pointing to space, would the energy budget of the surface change. 
So the answer is for the normal usage of solar panels, no.
after question edit: Storing electricity into batteries would require an enormous amount of batteries, both expensive and finite in usage.
One could pump water up in mountains, to hydroelectric lakes . If one used the hydroelectric plants in the winter the extra energy would heat where it is released, and that is all to the good for winter. On a yearly basis the energy budget would remain the same. Only radiating energy off to space will change it.
