CO2 doesn’t reflect radiation more efficiently than oxygen or nitrogen, it absorbs it. If it reflected radiation it would be an anti-greenhouse gas, equivalent to most particulates, that would cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back into space.
The person who asked this question has made the mistake of accepting that " The Greenhouse Effect" actually operates like a greenhouse. The glass in greenhouse makes it hot by allowing in visible light, but when that visible light is converted to infrared, not allowing the IR to escape. Because the IR radiation is trapped in the structure, it eventually warms all the matter within the structure, including the air, the ground and the plants.
The “Greenhouse Effect” works in almost exactly the opposite way. CO2 won’t allow IR light back into space. Instead it absorbs the light, converting it into heat.
In short: Actual greenhouse uses a material that absorbs very little IR radiation, instead reflecting the radiation emitted from the warmed ground back into the ground and air, heating them even further. “Greenhouse Effect” uses a material that absorbs a lot of IR radiation, which warms that material directly.
Huge difference and something that makes “Greenhouse Effect” utterly misleading and leads to silly questions like the one in the OP. Of course no scientist can epxlain why CO2 is more efficient at reflecting heat radiation, because every interested scientist knows that CO2 is more efficient at absorbing heat radiation.
To answer the thrust of the question, rather than the erroneous and leading question asked, yes, it’s explained comprehensively by quantum mechanics. There is no mystery surrounding the whys and wherefores of EMR absorption. There are literally thousands of book and theses written on every tedious detail of the subject. this forms the basis of every spectroscopic analysis technique as well as large amounts of modern optics.
In simple terms it comes down to an interaction between the energy level of the electrons in the atoms and the binds between them, the length of the bonds between atoms and whether those factors allow incoming photons can provide enough energy to to kick them to a higher energy level. You need to understand some quantum physics to understand it in any more depth, but anybody with a basic understanding of quantum physics doesn’t find it at all mysterious.
To point out how utterly un-mysterious all this is, spectroscopic analysis relies on how utterly predictable this all is to map the structure of molecules. It is because we know that a C=O double bind always absorbs light at this point on the spectrum and re-emits it at this point, and that an adjoining metal group will always pull the absorption down X nM and push the emmission up Y nM, that we can use the absorption and emission spectra to say whether an utterly novel, synthesised molecule contain a double or single bond on the 17th carbon atom on the second side chain.
There isn’t even a hint of a mystery here. We know how absorption works and we know why it works.
Well, I don’t. 20+ years after doing analytical and quantum chemistry, I’ve forgotten most of it. But any undergrad analytical chemist or physicist can explain it in detail, as can endless websites.