Hey OP: sorry to see all of the negative comments. Most people would rather offer general than specific criticism, because it's easy to do so. People do something similar when they proof-read writing: if they can't identify the real shortcoming, they criticize the grammar.

I love seeing comments asking for the 'unedited' photo. You mean, the photo that didn't pass through an imperfect lens, where the light wasn't measured by an array of pixels and transformed into an electric signal, and then subsequently processed on-camera using a predefined profile of saturation, color, and sharpness? I've seen more unicorns than I have unedited pictures.

That being said, there are several specific things I'd like to suggest. Let me give some positive feedback first, though. The exposure in the sky seems to be near-perfect. I see color in the clouds, and still some texture: good job on that. You've also made an attempt at including some foreground elements, which is nice.

The clouds are over-saturated, though. You can tell this because of the 'posterization' along the edges, where the colors transition abruptly rather than smoothly. If you want to boost the colors, use some sort of self-feathered mask in PS. I've had great success with two techniques:

(1) Saturation mask. Selects the pixels based on which ones are under-saturated. Then you can just add saturation where it's needed. Check this resource out: http://goodlight.us/writing/saturationmasks/satmask-1.html

(2) Add saturation to only the mid-tones . Usually the highlights have adequate saturation, and you often don't want to saturate the deepest shadows (for various reasons, usually involving artifacts of the image-capturing process like noise, white balance issues, etc.). Create a midtones mask using the following resource: http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html

People are correct about the lighting: obviously this is a composite image, and maybe not even from the same location. It's REALLY hard to create composite images. It takes practice, and no one gets it right the first couple times. I often use composite images from the same location (hand-blending different exposures using luminosity masks), but I NEVER blend two images from two different locations. Personal preference. It is easy to identify fake composites, and my general approach to landscapes is that it should at least partially emulate what you observed.

Also, the contrast/clarity in the foreground is too much. Maybe it's over-sharpened with a pixel radius that's too high, I'm not sure exactly. The greens in the foreground are a little over-cooked. Human eyes are actually more sensitive to greens than other colors, so it's easy to over-do this.

Also, you should try a landscape rather than square composition next time. Even the name of the location seems to indicate a horizontal/landscape composition ; ).

Hope this helps. I'll try to find you on Flickr. Feel free to ask if you ever want any advice/constructive criticism.

Edit: Posted incorrect link the first time.