Composite critique: are there any clear signs to you that this is a composite?

I was out photographing the northern lights the other night, it's a pretty rare occurrence as far south as I live. I photographed the lights from an open spot, and the pictures came out looking amazing, but I had a poor foreground that wasn't very interesting so I moved location. Of course with my luck the lights disappeared and never came back. This then is a composite of what I imagine it would have looked like if I were in this place when the light show first kicked off. Of course, it's not how it would have looked as you will see from the focal lengths below:

Picture 1 (sky):

Sony a7iii with Samyang 24/1.8 lens at 24 mm, f/2.8, 20 s, iso 320.

Picture 2 (foreground):

Sony a7iii with Sony 24-105 mm f/4 lens at 105 mm, f/4, 20 s, iso 320.

Picture 2 is in itself a composite stack of 30 exposures with median blending in photoshop to reduce noise, because I increased the exposure and shadows a in Lightroom so much that it became too noisy. This way the two pictures matched better after I added some grain back in Lightroom.

The blend mode of layer 1 and 2 in Photoshop is multiply. that way I achieved the green color cast on the windmill and bright pieces on the lighthouse.

/r/photocritique Thread Link - i.redd.it