Penmam-Montheith (PM) model presented by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) internationally, estimate the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) based on climate data from metrological stations. Appling of the PM model requires converting input climate and site data into a number of parameters, and FAO-56 recommends exact procedures for estimating these parameters.The parameters are included wind speed at 2 meter height (U2) saturated vapor pressure (eS), actual vapor pressure (ea), net radiation at crop surface (Rn), slop of vapor pressure verses temperature curve at temperature T (D), psychometric constant (g). However, a plethora of alternative procedures for estimating parameters exist in literature. As a consequence, it is likely that ambiguous results maybe obtained from the FAO-56 PM model because of the adoption of such alternative supporting equations. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate differences that could arise in FAO-56 PM ETo estimates if non-recommended equations are used to compute the parameters. Using historical climate records from 1986-2005 of two stations located in the hot-dry and cold sub-dry regions of Ahvaz and Tabriz monthly ETo estimates computed by FAO-56 PM were statistically compared statistically with those obtained by introducing alternative procedures from parameters.Statistical procedures were included mean absolute relative difference (AMEAN) and maximum absolute relative difference (MAXE). Nine alternative algorithms for ETo estimation were formulated, involving modified procedures for parameters associated with Rn, ea, es, D, g, and saturated vapor pressure at air temperature (eo).According to the results, four of these algorithms yielded ETo estimates that were in close correspondence with FAO-56 estimates. Two of the algorithms showed different estimates for selected climates. The remaining three algorithms, involving nonrecommended procedure for the vapor pressure deficit and net radiation parameters, yielded considerably different ETo estimates, giving rise to AMEAN and MAXE values higher that 2% for the estimates. The results also highlighted the acceptable procedure for estimation of eo and y, and need for strict adherence to recommended procedures, especially for estimating vapor pressure deficit and net radiation parameters.