I took your 29 days (oldest to newest) and found that there were 3 unusual days thus the following equation [![enter image description here][1]][1] with Actual/Fit and Forecast here [![enter image description here][2]][2]

All models are wrong ... but some are useful .... . It is fundamentally an autoregressive process of order 1 after one has adjusted for the three "unusual data points "  see [![enter image description here][3]][3] for a clear support for the anomaly identification.


Plot of the residuals  [![enter image description here][4]][4]from the above model suggesting reduced variability is clearly obvious . It is reasonable  to suggest that there has been a break-point in the model error variance suggesting GLS or a weighted model . This was not not investigated here due to sample size ! ).


Here is the plot of the original data [![enter image description here][5]][5]

While the variability of the series is higher at higher values suggesting to some that there is a need for logarithms   http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/18844/when-and-why-to-take-the-log-of-a-distribution-of-numbers ..it is truer yet that the error variance distribution is better characterized as having a deterministic change point at or about day 11.


[![enter image description here][6]][6]


  [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/TvkN3.png
  [2]: https://i.sstatic.net/gS3mW.png
  [3]: https://i.sstatic.net/bhMsF.png
  [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/quJM6.png
  [5]: https://i.sstatic.net/VE2l3.png
  [6]: https://i.sstatic.net/sYVcc.png