Accurate estimates of forest biomass stocks and fluxes are needed to quantify global carbon budgets and assess the response of forests to climate change. However, most forest inventories consider tree mortality as the only aboveground biomass (AGB) loss without accounting for losses via damage to living trees: branchfall, trunk breakage, and wood decay. Here, we use ~151,000 annual records of tree survival and structural completeness to compare AGB loss via damage to living trees to total AGB loss (mortality + damage) in seven tropical forests widely distributed across environmental conditions. We find that 42% (3.62 Mg ha−1 year−1; 95% confidence interval CI 2.36–5.25) of total AGB loss (8.72 Mg ha−1 year−1; CI 5.57–12.86) is due to damage to living trees. Total AGB loss was highly variable among forests, but these differences were mainly caused by site variability in damage‐related AGB losses rather than by mortality‐related AGB losses. We show that conventional forest inventories overestimate stand‐level AGB stocks by 4% (1%–17% range across forests) because assume structurally complete trees, underestimate total AGB loss by 29% (6%–57% range across forests) due to overlooked damage‐related AGB losses, and overestimate AGB loss via mortality by 22% (7%–80% range across forests) because of the assumption that trees are undamaged before dying. Our results indicate that forest carbon fluxes are higher than previously thought. Damage on living trees is an underappreciated component of the forest carbon cycle that is likely to become even more important as the frequency and severity of forest disturbances increase. Tree mortality is typically considered the only source of biomass loss in forest systems. A pervasive but commonly neglected biomass loss is the damage to living trees (i.e., branchfall, trunk breakage, wood decay). We show that 42% of total aboveground biomass loss is due to damage to living trees across seven tropical forests. Our results contrast with the typically low forest biomass losses estimated only from tree mortality and suggest that forest carbon turnover may be higher than previously thought. Since forest disturbance rates are expected to increase under climate change, biomass loss to damage is likely to become more important