It's a mostly stationary high-speed hurricane capable of putting an enormous amount of moisture into the air and at atmospheric level far above normal. It could explain where 40 days of rain came from.
But how could it produce more water than what was on earth at the start of the flood? And it doesn't account for higher atmospheric pressure, and a canopy would.
Doubtful. The amount of 'extra' water necessary to flood the Earth is more than a hurricane, even one of monstrous magnitude, could handle. Even so it would only be the mechanism for distributing the water, not the source.
There are no current creationist hypotheses which can explain the flood and the absence of evidence a global flood would have produced. They all require more energy than is available and fail to account for the affects of heat produced. Even the idea that there were no (or only very short) mountains before the flood with rapid plate movement after to give them height ignores the resulting kinetic energy which would produce enough heat to boil the oceans and create massive tsunamis.
In all current flood hypotheses the science is bad.