On Nov 1, 3:16*am, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:33*pm, Giles wrote:





On Oct 31, 2:02*pm, DaveS wrote:

On Oct 30, 7:59*pm, salmobytes wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:24*am, DaveS wrote:

How close to realtime is the data you can access?

Athttp://montana-riverboats.com, if you hover the mouse over
"Stream Flows" at screen middle bottom, you get (most of) Montana's
most important flows in a popup panel, updated nightly, using cron
and a little php/curl screen-scraping...querying the gov flows site at
3:00am
in the morning mountain time.

It takes about 90 seconds to complete, so it can't be done from a
mouse click.
But they only update the data once a day anyway. *So once a day
updates are as good as it gets.

Thanx. That adds another source. Two questions: I am assuming the data
are in Cfs, so would that figure represent an average for the previous
24 hours, or is it an instantaneous (point in time measure)? Do you
know where the data comes from original source)? What's with that
figure for the Madison below Hebgen Lake? Is it actually 1.something
cubic feet per second?

Judging by comparison with the rest of the figures in the table and
just a pinch of good sense, I'd suggest that perhaps there's a typo in
there somewhere.

That's worse than a household well.

You've got a household well that pumps over twelve gallons per second?

I'll bet six gajillion of the diminutive member's dollars that you
don't.

Dave Thanx

You're welcome.

g.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you are close,

Yes, I am.

it would be 12,342 gallons per second I find.

I found roughly 12.348 (1.65 x 7.48051948). That makes me closer than
you by about 12,329.657 gallons per second. Your well is even more
spectacular than I had thought. I think I might like to up the amount
of that bet. What kind of odds would you like?


But
yeah, you are right thatsa hell of a lot of water. I keep thinking
gallons per second, per minute really, while the numeric is cubic
feet. a one to seven scaled down conceptual space.

Ah. Well, something like that I s'pose.

That's one hell of a burden you carry for the rest of us and I, *for
one, *want to thank you for your service. ;+}}

Burden?

Dave
Now post a link per stream flow data for Wisconsin, . . . more than
the Fed data if possible.

Don't have any links to stream flow data in Wisconsin. I think I may
have had something for the middle branch of the Ontonagon River (U.P.,
not Wisconsin) some years ago when I learned about a controversy about
diverting the water, but those disappeared along time ago. Nothing
else. The thing is, generally, stream flow is not much of an issue in
this part of the world. There's oodles of water everywhere around
here. In fact, it's kind of hard to find a dry spot to sit on in
Michigan or Wisconsin. Not much reason to fight over water......not
much reason to be obsessed with stream flow data. Quite naturally,
this abundance of water here has led to a burgeoning of water
intensive enterprises, unlike places where a relative dearth of water
has led, quite unnaturally, to a burgeoning of water intensive
enterprises.....and a concommitant obsession with stream flow data.
Well, that's what ya get when EVERYBODY wants ALL of the paltry supply
of water, ainna? I mean, ya might as well try agribusiness in a
****in' desert, eh?

g.
you're welcome.