Your persistence has paid off. And it has provided me with information not previously known. Below is a quote from my favorite source of information (that Nature article was found on one of their sites. Wiki is an excellent source for references to original papers.)
The quote is from Wiki on "Retreat of glaciers since 1850*". Just the time period you are asking about, and no doubt for a good reason. You clearly know a lot about this sort of thing.
"The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the time before and after. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as global temperatures cooled slightly.[3] Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of many of the remaining glaciers is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas."
end quote
Clearly the growth and melting of glaciers has been significant in the last few centuries or so. No doubt you were aware of this. But the trend now appears to be melting beyond the cooling period accumulations, and now we are going into a new phase of melting. Or so the data seem to indicate.
If you can tolerate all the data, this is very revealing :
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
It will not be the first time there are no glaciers in the Antarctica! There are fossilized growth records of beach trees on the continent stemming from a time in which it's location is where it is in the present day. Remember, there are also records of glaciers at Death Valley (one of the hottest places on the planet today), and those glaciers covered what is now known at Death Valley at a time when Death Valley was much closer to the equator than it is now. There is also plenty of scientific evidence that the levels of greenhouse gases (predominantly C02) was many times as high as it is currently (roughly 20 times higher in parts per million than currently). The analysis of Ginko leaves as a means to track and trace historical C02 levels is well established now, and this can be performed as well with the fossilized record of Ginko leaves.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that Global temperatures are not or will not continue to increase. Nor does it dispute that levels of greenhouse gases (related to human life) are not contributing to this in a small way (as a percentage of the total change). There is a plethora of scientific data that clearly demonstrates the earths temperatures have been much higher than they are presently, that greenhouse gases were in the past much higher than they are today, and that earth has experienced many instances of what we can deem extreme ranges in both higher and lower temperature levels. None of this scientific evidence is in dispute by legitimate scientists.
The obvious flaw with much of the "encouraged" data on this topic is that so many want to excuse the historical evidence when it does not support a current theory. The idea that there is several million years worth of data, but some choose to only consider or are willing to consider data from the past 150 years or so is simply the most alarming part of the debate, discussion or theories. There is little dispute that the LIA existed as a cold or cooling period that spanned several hundred years. What is ironic is that there are seemingly many who have CHOSEN to take the temperatures from a known and identified cold or cool period as the baseline temperatures from which we want to measure current temperatures against.
It is like Bernie Sanders idea to tax people on investment gains and use the "cost basis" as March 23, 2020 - the day that the stock market bottomed! Doing so produces an exceptionally flawed result. A person could have purchased the S&P 500 Index on January 1, 2020 and sold it in August 2020 at the exact same price that he/she paid per share for the index. But using Sander's made up "cost basis" as March 23, 2020 - the break-even sale of the shares would be taxed as though a 38% gain was "theoretically" made - even though no such gain actually existed.
To some degree, this is the same type of flawed basis and calculation that so many are choosing to pursue with the topic and cause of global warming - ignoring the millions of years of evidence to formulate both a reasonable "average global temperature RANGE" and to what extremes the temperature must change to for the temperature to become outside of normal and historical variances.
Thankfully, such a chart or graph covering millions of years (limited to a period of duration that addresses the existence of complex land based life and a developed atmosphere) and overlaid with the historical record of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to measure and calculate the relationship between the two. I have seen such charts, so I know they exist.
Should we be concerned global temperatures are increasing? Yes, we should be concerned as we would need to develop a plan as to how best to adapt to these changes. Whether it will be gradual adjustments to agricultural needs, suitable living locations, etc. . . But this idea that we as a human species are going to be able to control global temperatures and keep them in a tiny little range of +/- 3 degree Celsius is nothing more than a fools errand - magnified even more if we choose the baseline temperatures from a period of time known or believed to be during a global cool/cold period.
All that said, it does not suggest or infer that I do not believe that we, as a people/population, should not make efforts to protect our environment and devise ways and methods to counter the negative impacts that are inevitable. And as with nearly everything in life and the world, a degree of balance is necessary in doing so.
The problems that we encounter in today's world is that of extremism and extremist's practices. Which of course leads to often times outlandish claims, willful ignorance of the full data set, cherry picking only data that supports a theory and claiming all data that does not is "unfounded" or "dubious". And this is the issue with the current discussion and/or debate on this topic. We have two subsets of people or groups (scientists included) - on "both sides" - that have chosen emotion over full scientific evidence and review. Of course, smart people, rationale people, logical people recognize that the truth in all likelihood resides somewhere between the two extremes of emotions and opinions. There are simply too many variable outside and beyond the single-item issue of human emissions of greenhouse gases that impact global temperatures.