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.
Actually there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of explanations. Many disagree with each other and virtually all are contradicted by science. But there is no shortage of explanations!
And now for something totally different:
Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into the ark?
A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!
(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)
Not all the water came from rain. Scripture describes God "as opening the fountains of the deep". There were probably geological changes of significant magnitude going on. We know that it rained on Noah for 40 days and nights.
The PDF file addressed the "boiling of the seas" theory. Explaining that's only true if the energy is evenly distributed which it wouldn't be.
Since you don't know what the geography was like before the flood, you really don't know how much energy it would take to flood the earth. Nor do you know how the earth would react and handle that much energy.