I'm really not understanding this or some of the comments, there are so may things that are obviously wrong.
The main illumination is clearly the sun, to the left and off frame. So why has the extra sun been added? (And that's without even mentioning the complete lack of the added sun's reflection.)
Zutty: When you keep adding drama in the sky you seem to do it by separating with a mask then (probably through curves) push the contrast (probably again) by pulling down the shadows quite severely. By not separating your luminosity from the colour you're also pushing the saturation of the colours to the extent that they no longer relate to the colour palette shown in the rest of the image. In musical terms the sky is playing a different tune in both colour and rhythm to the foreground.
The sky shows a dominant hue around 220 degrees with a brightness of between 25-55%. The sea, which is a reflection of the sky in both colour and brightness, shows a far more blue/green hue with a brightness of around 65-85%!
Sorry to be so blunt here but photography is a visual art and as photographers we should be practiced at looking and observing. So why are we not seeing such an obvious mis-match between the sky and the foreground?
Artistically, whether you choose to go abstract or for realism it's a cardinal rule that you should keep some consistency across your frame.
Aesthetically, if you saw this scene in real life you would run for cover, it would look so wrong you might think the world was coming to an end.