No. None of those define what the global surface temperature is. They explain quite a lot about what measurements are made, but that is not the same thing. To see why this is so, consider mass. Mass is very commonly measured using a spring scale (especially nowadays using electronic strain gauges). However, it would be a fundamental error to try to define mass using measurements from such an instrument as it would vary from place to place. If you were to define mass as the result of any measurement, it would have to be a measurement using a balance scales instead, as that merely compares two masses, so is (potentially) much more accurate.
In theory, it's possible to define a property solely by reference to a measurement. This might be something like IQ, where a test is devised which provides a repeatable measurement, so a term is invented to describe what is being measured even though nobody really knows what it is. A physical example of this might be your oven temperature. You might bake something by having the control knob at 180. That's a somewhat arbitrary number. It may mean that the heating element is kept at precisely 180° C, or that the air temperature at the top (or some other part) of the oven stays at 180° C, or that the surface of the baking tin stays at that temperature. You don't know and don't care. This is why your friend might say that they set their oven to 190. The number does not represent a particular physical quantity, but depends on many and therefore cannot be precise, since the thing it represents is inherently vague.
However, I presume that when a climate scientist publishes measurements, models and analysis, the quantities are
intended to correspond to an exact physical quantity - and differ from that theoretical (unknowable) value because of practical difficulties. This is obviously essential if measurements taken in different ways are intended to be describing the same physical thing (e.g. temperature from traditional observatories being compared against satellite observations). Consequently, when referring to something such as "global surface temperature" in a serious scientific context, it's essential to either define exactly what that means, or to have a broadly accepted definition that everyone can refer to.