I would propose 2, if either one happens you win. The IPCC predicts about a 4-10 degree F rise in temps over the next 100 years. I would say lets place the limit at 0.5 degree F rise over the next 10 years as measured by US thermometer data. The IPCC is predicting a 5mm rise per year in sea levels. That's about 2.5 inches over 10 years, not sure who I trust on this one, but I am sure we can agree on someone.
You gotta remember, I'm not advocating worst-case IPCC scenarios. I think we're going to see a ~2.5 C rise in global temperature in the next CENTURY. Which (if linear, which it won't be) would be 0.25 C in 10 years. That's 0.4 F in 10 years. So if you'd be willing to bet on a 0.3 F (0.18 C) degree rise in global temperature as determined by the National Climatic Data Center over the next decade, I'd take it (for a 12-pack of Blue Ridge Amber Lager, not for $10K). And I win if for any year the yearly global average temperature is 0.18 C higher than the yearly global average temperature for 2002. This year could have a moderate El Nino in it, so that's not a bad starting point.
I don't trust anybody's sea-level rise data. The difference between U.S. analysis of TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry data and European analysis of the same data is different by like 5 mm. So here's an alternative: the timing of spring thaw on northern lakes and rivers will be earlier, on average, by more than 1 day over the period 2002-2012. We will consult Dr. John Magnuson of the University of Wisconsin or whoever inherits his data set should he become unavailable.