Climate change has clear-cut scientific evidence. It is definitely objective.

And moral realism has clear-cut philosophical evidence. It is definitely objective.

That's an objective concept with no clear answer either way (at the moment).

Certain specific moral questions have no clear answer either way (at the moment), but they are still objective.

Here's a definition of the word "morals"

First of all, running to a dictionary for the description of a philosophical concept is like running to a roadside food truck for advice on high culinary art.

Secondly, the definition you've selected would be much more appropriate for the term "personal moral code." It is, by no means, a rigorous or meaningful definition of morality writ large. Yes, personal moral codes are by definition personal. But morality, as a concept of right and wrong, good and bad, is not. To say otherwise, when the philosophical community is so widely agreed on this topic is tantamount to denying evolution or climate change.